https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297367 The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the demand of Rs. 6,17,53,998 raised by the respondent under a perpetual lease-deed. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to charge unearned increase due to a business reorganization, as no consideration passed and the policy cited did not apply to demerger situations. The judgment relied upon by the respondent was found inapplicable. The Court directed the respondent to take necessary steps for property conversion without charging unearned increase. en-us Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 31 Aug 2021 22:17:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297367 The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and quashing the demand of Rs. 6,17,53,998 raised by the respondent under a perpetual lease-deed. The Court held that the respondent was not entitled to charge unearned increase due to a business reorganization, as no consideration passed and the policy cited did not apply to demerger situations. The judgment relied upon by the respondent was found inapplicable. The Court directed the respondent to take necessary steps for property conversion without charging unearned increase. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=297367