<?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>2006 (10) TMI 490 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273584</link>
    <description>Stamp duty on a conveyance executed by court pursuant to a decree for specific performance is chargeable on the market value of the property conveyed, not on the consideration stated in the earlier agreement to sell, because duty attaches to the instrument of conveyance and title passes only on execution. For valuation under the Stamp Act, the relevant date is the date of execution of the sale deed by the court, as the taxable event occurs when the instrument is executed. Penalty under section 47-A was held unauthorized on these facts, because the provision, as it then stood, did not empower imposition of penalty and was confined to determination of market value and duty.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2018 17:47:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=525544" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (10) TMI 490 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273584</link>
      <description>Stamp duty on a conveyance executed by court pursuant to a decree for specific performance is chargeable on the market value of the property conveyed, not on the consideration stated in the earlier agreement to sell, because duty attaches to the instrument of conveyance and title passes only on execution. For valuation under the Stamp Act, the relevant date is the date of execution of the sale deed by the court, as the taxable event occurs when the instrument is executed. Penalty under section 47-A was held unauthorized on these facts, because the provision, as it then stood, did not empower imposition of penalty and was confined to determination of market value and duty.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273584</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>