<?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>1973 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8872</link>
    <description>Transfer of business assets to a private limited company for a stated money consideration was treated as a sale for tax purposes, even though the consideration was later satisfied by allotment of shares to the transferor and his relations. The court treated the arrangement as two distinct steps: a sale of the assets for price and a separate mode of discharging that price. Because the company was a separate legal entity, the taxing authority had to give effect to the legal character of the document and not reclassify the transaction as a mere exchange. The excess over written down value was therefore taxable as profit under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=47912" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (6) TMI 2 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8872</link>
      <description>Transfer of business assets to a private limited company for a stated money consideration was treated as a sale for tax purposes, even though the consideration was later satisfied by allotment of shares to the transferor and his relations. The court treated the arrangement as two distinct steps: a sale of the assets for price and a separate mode of discharging that price. Because the company was a separate legal entity, the taxing authority had to give effect to the legal character of the document and not reclassify the transaction as a mere exchange. The excess over written down value was therefore taxable as profit under the second proviso to section 10(2)(vii).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 08 Jun 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=8872</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>