<?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>1997 (1) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5559</link>
    <description>SC held that preference shares constitute movable property and, when held as capital assets, their redemption amounts to a &quot;transfer&quot; within section 2(47)(i) read with section 45 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had acquired preference shares below face value and received an amount equal to face value upon redemption. The Court ruled that the difference between the redemption amount and the cost of acquisition is taxable as capital gains. It rejected the contention that redemption is outside the scope of &quot;transfer,&quot; distinguishing earlier jurisprudence on contribution of capital assets to firms. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44642" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (1) TMI 5 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5559</link>
      <description>SC held that preference shares constitute movable property and, when held as capital assets, their redemption amounts to a &quot;transfer&quot; within section 2(47)(i) read with section 45 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee had acquired preference shares below face value and received an amount equal to face value upon redemption. The Court ruled that the difference between the redemption amount and the cost of acquisition is taxable as capital gains. It rejected the contention that redemption is outside the scope of &quot;transfer,&quot; distinguishing earlier jurisprudence on contribution of capital assets to firms. The Tribunal&#039;s view was upheld and the assessee&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jan 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5559</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>