<?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>2015 (8) TMI 1424 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196109</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal challenging the assessment of a long-term capital loss on the redemption of shares without STT payment and listing on a stock exchange for the assessment year 2006-07. The Court found that the Tribunal&#039;s reasoning was valid, emphasizing that the transaction was not deemed bogus as previous similar transactions were not considered sham. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 Nov 2017 06:33:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=496706" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (8) TMI 1424 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196109</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, dismissing the appeal challenging the assessment of a long-term capital loss on the redemption of shares without STT payment and listing on a stock exchange for the assessment year 2006-07. The Court found that the Tribunal&#039;s reasoning was valid, emphasizing that the transaction was not deemed bogus as previous similar transactions were not considered sham. The Court concluded that no substantial question of law arose, affirming the Tribunal&#039;s decision.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>