<?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>2001 (10) TMI 49 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12770</link>
    <description>Conversion of equity shares into preference shares was held to constitute a transfer of property and a deemed gift under the Gift-tax Act because the shareholder gave up the wider rights attached to equity and received shares carrying lesser rights, thereby diminishing one property interest and enhancing another. The court also held that Rule 10(2) of the Gift-tax Rules governed valuation of shares in the relevant assessment period, as the shares were not freely saleable in the open market and the later Schedule II could not apply retrospectively. The valuation therefore had to be redetermined under the prescribed statutory method taking all relevant factors into account.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 18:46:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51781" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (10) TMI 49 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12770</link>
      <description>Conversion of equity shares into preference shares was held to constitute a transfer of property and a deemed gift under the Gift-tax Act because the shareholder gave up the wider rights attached to equity and received shares carrying lesser rights, thereby diminishing one property interest and enhancing another. The court also held that Rule 10(2) of the Gift-tax Rules governed valuation of shares in the relevant assessment period, as the shares were not freely saleable in the open market and the later Schedule II could not apply retrospectively. The valuation therefore had to be redetermined under the prescribed statutory method taking all relevant factors into account.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12770</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>