<?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>1995 (8) TMI 336 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287792</link>
    <description>The Act applied where the transferee side&#039;s remaining agricultural holding fell within the prescribed ceiling, even though the transaction initially referred to a larger extent of land. A document styled as a sale, together with later sale deeds, was treated as a prohibited loan transaction because the evidence showed no real outright conveyance, possession stayed with the original owner for years, and the later deeds were executed within the prohibited period. Once the authority found a prohibited loan transaction, it could declare the transfer void and restore possession; separate enquiry into market price or differential consideration under the alternative mechanism was unnecessary on the facts found.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 02 May 2020 16:55:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=612025" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (8) TMI 336 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287792</link>
      <description>The Act applied where the transferee side&#039;s remaining agricultural holding fell within the prescribed ceiling, even though the transaction initially referred to a larger extent of land. A document styled as a sale, together with later sale deeds, was treated as a prohibited loan transaction because the evidence showed no real outright conveyance, possession stayed with the original owner for years, and the later deeds were executed within the prohibited period. Once the authority found a prohibited loan transaction, it could declare the transfer void and restore possession; separate enquiry into market price or differential consideration under the alternative mechanism was unnecessary on the facts found.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Aug 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287792</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>