<?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>1986 (4) TMI 34 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26449</link>
    <description>The High Court of Karnataka upheld the validity of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subjecting agricultural lands to capital gains tax. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, finding the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer valid and rejecting the assessees&#039; claims for exemption from capital gains tax on compensation received for lands near Bangalore. The court criticized the lower authorities for relying on a Bombay High Court ruling not applicable to Karnataka and directed adherence to its ruling to prevent future errors. Despite the outcome favoring the Revenue, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:36:29 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65447" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (4) TMI 34 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26449</link>
      <description>The High Court of Karnataka upheld the validity of section 2(14)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, subjecting agricultural lands to capital gains tax. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, finding the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer valid and rejecting the assessees&#039; claims for exemption from capital gains tax on compensation received for lands near Bangalore. The court criticized the lower authorities for relying on a Bombay High Court ruling not applicable to Karnataka and directed adherence to its ruling to prevent future errors. Despite the outcome favoring the Revenue, each party was ordered to bear their own costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26449</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>