<?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>1965 (10) TMI 88 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289473</link>
    <description>An instrument executed on dissolution of a partnership, by which one partner relinquished his undivided interest in the assets for money and the other partner took over the business assets and liabilities, was treated in substance as a conveyance rather than a mere release. The use of the word &quot;release&quot; did not control classification where the operative effect was transfer of an interest in common property for consideration. Where the instrument answered both the release and conveyance descriptions in the Schedule, Section 6 required the higher stamp duty to be paid, so the deed was chargeable as a conveyance under Article 19.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 01 Aug 2020 10:55:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=618872" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (10) TMI 88 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289473</link>
      <description>An instrument executed on dissolution of a partnership, by which one partner relinquished his undivided interest in the assets for money and the other partner took over the business assets and liabilities, was treated in substance as a conveyance rather than a mere release. The use of the word &quot;release&quot; did not control classification where the operative effect was transfer of an interest in common property for consideration. Where the instrument answered both the release and conveyance descriptions in the Schedule, Section 6 required the higher stamp duty to be paid, so the deed was chargeable as a conveyance under Article 19.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289473</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>