<?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>1997 (3) TMI 58 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17261</link>
    <description>A development agreement transferring an undivided share in land for composite consideration of cash and future construction was treated as a transfer within Chapter XX-C because the consideration could be valued in money terms, including the value of promised built-up space as on the agreement date. The pre-emptive purchase order was sustained because the authority issued notice, considered objections, and relied on a proximate comparable sale showing substantial undervaluation; the objections based on title deeds, eviction assistance, funding urgency, and later transactions did not rebut the valuation basis or the statutory presumption of intent to evade tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:16:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56261" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (3) TMI 58 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17261</link>
      <description>A development agreement transferring an undivided share in land for composite consideration of cash and future construction was treated as a transfer within Chapter XX-C because the consideration could be valued in money terms, including the value of promised built-up space as on the agreement date. The pre-emptive purchase order was sustained because the authority issued notice, considered objections, and relied on a proximate comparable sale showing substantial undervaluation; the objections based on title deeds, eviction assistance, funding urgency, and later transactions did not rebut the valuation basis or the statutory presumption of intent to evade tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17261</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>