<?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>1990 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23346</link>
    <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, affirming that the cost of acquisition should be deducted from the full value of consideration during the second distribution in 1968. The Tribunal&#039;s computation of capital gains by deducting the cost of acquisition from the second distribution was deemed correct, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee. The court awarded costs to the assessee, including counsel&#039;s fee set at Rs. 500.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:00:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62345" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23346</link>
      <description>The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision, affirming that the cost of acquisition should be deducted from the full value of consideration during the second distribution in 1968. The Tribunal&#039;s computation of capital gains by deducting the cost of acquisition from the second distribution was deemed correct, with the court ruling in favor of the assessee. The court awarded costs to the assessee, including counsel&#039;s fee set at Rs. 500.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23346</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>