<?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 (1) TMI 101 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4100</link>
    <description>The courts affirmed the classification of lease income as income from property, ruling that the absence of business activities by the appellant warranted this categorization. Additionally, the valuation of long term capital gains was upheld based on factual evidence and considerations, including a personal visit to the property location. The courts found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal and ultimately dismissed it.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:58:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=43447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (1) TMI 101 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4100</link>
      <description>The courts affirmed the classification of lease income as income from property, ruling that the absence of business activities by the appellant warranted this categorization. Additionally, the valuation of long term capital gains was upheld based on factual evidence and considerations, including a personal visit to the property location. The courts found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeal and ultimately dismissed it.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4100</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>