<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (8) TMI 907 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177394</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ruling that Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act does not apply to the retirement of a partner and that a family arrangement does not constitute a &#039;transfer&#039; for capital gains taxation. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming that the family arrangement in this case was genuine and aimed at preserving family harmony, thus not subject to capital gains tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2016 12:54:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=412439" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (8) TMI 907 - ITAT CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177394</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), ruling that Section 45(4) of the Income-tax Act does not apply to the retirement of a partner and that a family arrangement does not constitute a &#039;transfer&#039; for capital gains taxation. The appeal by the revenue was dismissed, affirming that the family arrangement in this case was genuine and aimed at preserving family harmony, thus not subject to capital gains tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=177394</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>