<?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>1999 (4) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5743</link>
    <description>Section 60 applies only where income is diverted to a transferee but the income-producing asset remains with the transferor; where there is a &quot;transfer&quot; as specially defined in s 63, including an agreement, s 60 is excluded. Since an agreement to transfer the factories existed, the HC erred in affirming the Tribunal&#039;s view that profits from the two factories were taxable in the hands of the transferor-company. The assessment of capital gains on the basis of gross consideration as sale price also implied acceptance that profits belonged to the transferee, rendering the contrary accrual finding inconsistent. The question was answered against the Revenue; the appeals were allowed and the orders of the HC, Tribunal, and tax authorities were set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2026 00:59:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=44826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (4) TMI 4 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5743</link>
      <description>Section 60 applies only where income is diverted to a transferee but the income-producing asset remains with the transferor; where there is a &quot;transfer&quot; as specially defined in s 63, including an agreement, s 60 is excluded. Since an agreement to transfer the factories existed, the HC erred in affirming the Tribunal&#039;s view that profits from the two factories were taxable in the hands of the transferor-company. The assessment of capital gains on the basis of gross consideration as sale price also implied acceptance that profits belonged to the transferee, rendering the contrary accrual finding inconsistent. The question was answered against the Revenue; the appeals were allowed and the orders of the HC, Tribunal, and tax authorities were set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Apr 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=5743</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>