<?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>1953 (8) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276967</link>
    <description>The third proviso to Section 12B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed as covering distributions of capital assets in specie on events such as liquidation, not a liquidator&#039;s sale followed by distribution of sale proceeds; the exemption therefore did not extend to profits from sale of plant, machinery and buildings in voluntary liquidation. The second proviso was held to apply only to property whose income is chargeable under Section 9, and property used by the assessee for business was outside that charging provision; the exemption therefore could not be claimed for profit attributable to business-use buildings. Both claims failed and the capital gains assessment stood.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2018 13:09:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542898" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1953 (8) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276967</link>
      <description>The third proviso to Section 12B(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was construed as covering distributions of capital assets in specie on events such as liquidation, not a liquidator&#039;s sale followed by distribution of sale proceeds; the exemption therefore did not extend to profits from sale of plant, machinery and buildings in voluntary liquidation. The second proviso was held to apply only to property whose income is chargeable under Section 9, and property used by the assessee for business was outside that charging provision; the exemption therefore could not be claimed for profit attributable to business-use buildings. Both claims failed and the capital gains assessment stood.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 1953 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276967</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>