<?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>2002 (10) TMI 57 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12066</link>
    <description>Agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi, was analysed under section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income-tax Act by reference to municipal jurisdiction and the prescribed population criterion. The absence of a notification under section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was held irrelevant for income-tax classification, because that notification did not determine whether the land fell within the municipal area for capital asset purposes. Prior decisions concerning the same village were followed, and the contention that rural character alone excluded the land from capital gains tax was rejected. Capital gains on transfer were therefore chargeable to tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51078" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (10) TMI 57 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12066</link>
      <description>Agricultural land in village Nangal Dewat, Delhi, was analysed under section 2(14)(iii)(a) of the Income-tax Act by reference to municipal jurisdiction and the prescribed population criterion. The absence of a notification under section 507 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, was held irrelevant for income-tax classification, because that notification did not determine whether the land fell within the municipal area for capital asset purposes. Prior decisions concerning the same village were followed, and the contention that rural character alone excluded the land from capital gains tax was rejected. Capital gains on transfer were therefore chargeable to tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Oct 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12066</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>