<?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>1968 (12) TMI 9 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7526</link>
    <description>Wealth-tax paid by the assessee was treated as inadmissible business expenditure for the assessment year 1959-60, following the governing authority relied on by the Court. For capital gains on sale of shares to connected persons, the first proviso to section 12B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed as applying only where the transaction is shown on objective material to be a device for avoidance or reduction of tax liability. A bona fide, acted-upon sale entered into for the purchasers&#039; benefit could not be recharacterised by substituting fair market value merely because the declared price was below market value. The comparison with section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 did not alter that construction.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46576" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (12) TMI 9 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7526</link>
      <description>Wealth-tax paid by the assessee was treated as inadmissible business expenditure for the assessment year 1959-60, following the governing authority relied on by the Court. For capital gains on sale of shares to connected persons, the first proviso to section 12B(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed as applying only where the transaction is shown on objective material to be a device for avoidance or reduction of tax liability. A bona fide, acted-upon sale entered into for the purchasers&#039; benefit could not be recharacterised by substituting fair market value merely because the declared price was below market value. The comparison with section 10A of the Excess Profits Tax Act, 1940 did not alter that construction.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Dec 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7526</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>