<?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>1982 (3) TMI 268 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194553</link>
    <description>Land transferred under an agreement for sale, where possession passed but no valid title deed was executed, remained includible in the transferor&#039;s holding for ceiling computation. The Supreme Court of India read the statutory definition of &quot;holding&quot; to cover land held as owner and land in possession under part performance of a contract for sale, and noted that the same land may be relevant to different persons in different capacities. Because ownership was not divested, the transferor continued to hold the land as owner despite the transferee&#039;s possession. The High Court&#039;s exclusion of the land was therefore set aside and the Tribunal&#039;s order restored.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 15:23:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=489168" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1982 (3) TMI 268 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194553</link>
      <description>Land transferred under an agreement for sale, where possession passed but no valid title deed was executed, remained includible in the transferor&#039;s holding for ceiling computation. The Supreme Court of India read the statutory definition of &quot;holding&quot; to cover land held as owner and land in possession under part performance of a contract for sale, and noted that the same land may be relevant to different persons in different capacities. Because ownership was not divested, the transferor continued to hold the land as owner despite the transferee&#039;s possession. The High Court&#039;s exclusion of the land was therefore set aside and the Tribunal&#039;s order restored.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 05 Mar 1982 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194553</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>