<?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>1962 (4) TMI 111 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186966</link>
    <description>The decisive test for the tax treatment of consideration received on transfer of transport permits is the real nature of the transaction, not its label. The permits were treated as non-marketable rights, not capital assets owned in the ordinary sense, and the assessee had no legal entitlement to demand them as property. The receipt was for parting with the right to ply vehicles and reflected a change in the mode of earning profits, without creating an enduring capital advantage or increasing capital. The transfer-of-loom-hours authority was distinguished because that case involved a transferable legal right. The amount was therefore revenue income, not a capital receipt, and was taxable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 17:18:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=443841" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (4) TMI 111 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186966</link>
      <description>The decisive test for the tax treatment of consideration received on transfer of transport permits is the real nature of the transaction, not its label. The permits were treated as non-marketable rights, not capital assets owned in the ordinary sense, and the assessee had no legal entitlement to demand them as property. The receipt was for parting with the right to ply vehicles and reflected a change in the mode of earning profits, without creating an enduring capital advantage or increasing capital. The transfer-of-loom-hours authority was distinguished because that case involved a transferable legal right. The amount was therefore revenue income, not a capital receipt, and was taxable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 18 Apr 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186966</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>