<?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 (2) TMI 59 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12625</link>
    <description>A sale deed that recorded receipt of consideration and delivery of possession was treated as a completed transfer of a capital asset, and registration related back to the date of execution. A contemporaneous resale agreement did not undo the transfer already effected by the sale deed, because subjective intention to retain control could not override the legal effect of a valid sale. The arrangement was therefore within the statutory definition of transfer and attracted capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act; the authorities on conditional sale, reconveyance, and collateral obligations did not alter that result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 16:41:30 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (2) TMI 59 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12625</link>
      <description>A sale deed that recorded receipt of consideration and delivery of possession was treated as a completed transfer of a capital asset, and registration related back to the date of execution. A contemporaneous resale agreement did not undo the transfer already effected by the sale deed, because subjective intention to retain control could not override the legal effect of a valid sale. The arrangement was therefore within the statutory definition of transfer and attracted capital gains tax under section 45 of the Income-tax Act; the authorities on conditional sale, reconveyance, and collateral obligations did not alter that result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12625</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>