<?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 (2) TMI 45 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11155</link>
    <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the interim payments of Rs. 8 lakhs did not fall under the ambit of section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act as they were conditional and subject to final determination. The court emphasized that only final, enforceable enhanced compensation is taxable under the provision, not interim amounts received under security. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:36:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=50173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2004 (2) TMI 45 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11155</link>
      <description>The High Court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, ruling in favor of the assessee. It held that the interim payments of Rs. 8 lakhs did not fall under the ambit of section 45(5)(b) of the Income-tax Act as they were conditional and subject to final determination. The court emphasized that only final, enforceable enhanced compensation is taxable under the provision, not interim amounts received under security. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed for lacking merit.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 20 Feb 2004 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=11155</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>