<?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 (1) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10479</link>
    <description>Chapter XX-A governed a transfer agreement executed before Chapter XX-C came into force. The applicable statutory regime is determined by the agreement&#039;s execution date, not by subsequent filing of Form No. 37-I under Rule 48L(2). Accordingly, filing that form did not bring the transaction within Chapter XX-C or alter the law governing the transfer. The transfer remained subject to the earlier statutory regime in force when the agreement was executed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:50:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (1) TMI 18 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10479</link>
      <description>Chapter XX-A governed a transfer agreement executed before Chapter XX-C came into force. The applicable statutory regime is determined by the agreement&#039;s execution date, not by subsequent filing of Form No. 37-I under Rule 48L(2). Accordingly, filing that form did not bring the transaction within Chapter XX-C or alter the law governing the transfer. The transfer remained subject to the earlier statutory regime in force when the agreement was executed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>