<?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>2004 (3) TMI 12 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10043</link>
    <description>Under Chapter XX-C, once a property is compulsorily purchased and vests in the Central Government, the transferor cannot be denied the apparent consideration on the ground that encroachment remains on the property. The encroachment was treated as part of the known condition of the property, not as a legal encumbrance defeating payment, particularly where the authority proceeded with knowledge of that condition and the transferor had already lost title and could not be compelled to perform an impossible act of delivery. The objection based on non-removal of encroachment was rejected, and payment of the apparent consideration was held due.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49065" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (3) TMI 12 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10043</link>
      <description>Under Chapter XX-C, once a property is compulsorily purchased and vests in the Central Government, the transferor cannot be denied the apparent consideration on the ground that encroachment remains on the property. The encroachment was treated as part of the known condition of the property, not as a legal encumbrance defeating payment, particularly where the authority proceeded with knowledge of that condition and the transferor had already lost title and could not be compelled to perform an impossible act of delivery. The objection based on non-removal of encroachment was rejected, and payment of the apparent consideration was held due.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Mar 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10043</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>