<?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 (4) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9043</link>
    <description>Agricultural land is determined by actual user and surrounding facts at the time of transfer, including cultivation, maintenance of fruit trees, payment of land revenue and canal charges, and absence of conversion to non-agricultural use; on those facts, the land was held to be agricultural and outside the capital asset definition. Section 52 applies only where a connected transfer is shown to have been made with the object of avoiding or reducing tax liability, and family shareholding alone was insufficient; it was not attracted. The difference between market value and consideration, already treated as a gift under the Gift-tax Act, fell within the exemption for gifts, while the purchaser company&#039;s separate corporate personality could not be ignored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Jun 2009 19:02:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48080" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1973 (4) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9043</link>
      <description>Agricultural land is determined by actual user and surrounding facts at the time of transfer, including cultivation, maintenance of fruit trees, payment of land revenue and canal charges, and absence of conversion to non-agricultural use; on those facts, the land was held to be agricultural and outside the capital asset definition. Section 52 applies only where a connected transfer is shown to have been made with the object of avoiding or reducing tax liability, and family shareholding alone was insufficient; it was not attracted. The difference between market value and consideration, already treated as a gift under the Gift-tax Act, fell within the exemption for gifts, while the purchaser company&#039;s separate corporate personality could not be ignored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 1973 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>