<?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>2018 (12) TMI 217 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371448</link>
    <description>The High Court held that the assessee firm was reconstituted, not dissolved, on 31st March 2002, and continued its business. Therefore, there was no liability for capital gains tax for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The High Court restored the CIT(A)&#039;s order, ruling in favor of the assessee and allowing the appeal with no costs imposed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2018 15:19:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=545386" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (12) TMI 217 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371448</link>
      <description>The High Court held that the assessee firm was reconstituted, not dissolved, on 31st March 2002, and continued its business. Therefore, there was no liability for capital gains tax for the Assessment Year 2002-03. The High Court restored the CIT(A)&#039;s order, ruling in favor of the assessee and allowing the appeal with no costs imposed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=371448</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>