<?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>2003 (10) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10675</link>
    <description>Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held not to operate retrospectively against an agreement for transfer executed on 7 March 1986. The Court followed the earlier view that Chapter XX-C and Rule 48L are prospective in effect, so a transfer completed before 1 October 1986 remains outside that regime. As the transaction fell under the earlier applicable chapter, the order made under section 269UD(1) lacked legal foundation and was set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=49696" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (10) TMI 11 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10675</link>
      <description>Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was held not to operate retrospectively against an agreement for transfer executed on 7 March 1986. The Court followed the earlier view that Chapter XX-C and Rule 48L are prospective in effect, so a transfer completed before 1 October 1986 remains outside that regime. As the transaction fell under the earlier applicable chapter, the order made under section 269UD(1) lacked legal foundation and was set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Oct 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10675</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>