<?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 (8) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10273</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Income-tax Settlement Commission&#039;s decision to assess the profit from the sale of silver as business profit rather than capital gains for the assessment year 1993-94. The petitioner&#039;s argument that the silver should be considered a capital asset was rejected as the court found that the silver was either stock-in-trade or raw material for the petitioner&#039;s business based on the Commission&#039;s findings. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the assessment of profit as business profit and stating that there was no basis for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Jul 2009 12:51:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49295" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (8) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10273</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Income-tax Settlement Commission&#039;s decision to assess the profit from the sale of silver as business profit rather than capital gains for the assessment year 1993-94. The petitioner&#039;s argument that the silver should be considered a capital asset was rejected as the court found that the silver was either stock-in-trade or raw material for the petitioner&#039;s business based on the Commission&#039;s findings. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the assessment of profit as business profit and stating that there was no basis for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10273</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>