<?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>1967 (5) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5046</link>
    <description>Capital gains arising on transfer of assets after discontinuance of business were held outside the relief under section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because that exemption applies only to income earned from carrying on the business and does not extend to capital gains treated as income by deeming fiction under the capital gains provision. On valuation, the Tribunal was required to consider the evidence on fair market value as on 1 January 1939 and give reasons; a bare conclusion without appraisal of the material was insufficient. The capital gains exemption was therefore unavailable, while the valuation dispute required reconsideration on evidence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44129" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1967 (5) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5046</link>
      <description>Capital gains arising on transfer of assets after discontinuance of business were held outside the relief under section 25(3) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, because that exemption applies only to income earned from carrying on the business and does not extend to capital gains treated as income by deeming fiction under the capital gains provision. On valuation, the Tribunal was required to consider the evidence on fair market value as on 1 January 1939 and give reasons; a bare conclusion without appraisal of the material was insufficient. The capital gains exemption was therefore unavailable, while the valuation dispute required reconsideration on evidence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 May 1967 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5046</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>