<?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>1999 (5) TMI 630 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296562</link>
    <description>On sale of an industrial concern under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the sale consideration accepted at auction was treated as the money received by the Corporation for Section 29(4), even though the purchaser paid by instalments. The Court held that the Corporation could not recharacterise unpaid instalments as a separate loan to avoid accounting for the full realised consideration. After deducting costs, charges and the amount due to the Corporation, the remaining residue was held to belong to the person entitled to it and had to be paid over. The appeal failed and the direction to pay the residue was sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2021 11:10:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=650906" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (5) TMI 630 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296562</link>
      <description>On sale of an industrial concern under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, the sale consideration accepted at auction was treated as the money received by the Corporation for Section 29(4), even though the purchaser paid by instalments. The Court held that the Corporation could not recharacterise unpaid instalments as a separate loan to avoid accounting for the full realised consideration. After deducting costs, charges and the amount due to the Corporation, the remaining residue was held to belong to the person entitled to it and had to be paid over. The appeal failed and the direction to pay the residue was sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 May 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296562</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>