<?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>2020 (7) TMI 604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396935</link>
    <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, and restored the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, concluding that the transfer of the API division was not a &#039;slump sale&#039; and that Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not attracted. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 Jul 2020 13:26:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618385" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2020 (7) TMI 604 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396935</link>
      <description>The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal&#039;s order, and restored the CIT(A)&#039;s decision, concluding that the transfer of the API division was not a &#039;slump sale&#039; and that Section 50B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was not attracted. The substantial questions of law were answered in favor of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 07 Jul 2020 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=396935</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>