<?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>1962 (5) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276650</link>
    <description>Tax incidence turned on the true character of two property arrangements. Receipts from shops built on another&#039;s land were treated as proceeds of a self-liquidating or usufructuary mortgage, because the documents showed capital advanced, possession for a fixed term, and recovery through use of the shops; they were not taxable as lease rent. By contrast, a house transferred to the assessee&#039;s wife in discharge of dower debt remained assessable in the assessee&#039;s hands, because the surrounding facts showed no effective divestiture of ownership and possession. The legal effect of the transaction, not its label, controlled the income-tax treatment.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:57:20 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=541976" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1962 (5) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276650</link>
      <description>Tax incidence turned on the true character of two property arrangements. Receipts from shops built on another&#039;s land were treated as proceeds of a self-liquidating or usufructuary mortgage, because the documents showed capital advanced, possession for a fixed term, and recovery through use of the shops; they were not taxable as lease rent. By contrast, a house transferred to the assessee&#039;s wife in discharge of dower debt remained assessable in the assessee&#039;s hands, because the surrounding facts showed no effective divestiture of ownership and possession. The legal effect of the transaction, not its label, controlled the income-tax treatment.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 1962 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>