<?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>1972 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6390</link>
    <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that the amount of Rs. 31,26,000 constituted a debt owed by the assessee-company under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Despite the option for payment through share transfer and the controlling interest of the assessee in the other company, the court emphasized the separate legal entities of the companies and affirmed that the liability qualified as a debt. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court&#039;s judgment in favor of the assessee was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=45473" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (11) TMI 3 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6390</link>
      <description>The Supreme Court upheld the High Court&#039;s decision that the amount of Rs. 31,26,000 constituted a debt owed by the assessee-company under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Despite the option for payment through share transfer and the controlling interest of the assessee in the other company, the court emphasized the separate legal entities of the companies and affirmed that the liability qualified as a debt. The appeals were dismissed, and the High Court&#039;s judgment in favor of the assessee was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Nov 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=6390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>