<?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>1984 (2) TMI 16 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26893</link>
    <description>Share-transfer receipts were treated as business income because the later binding view held the assessee to be a dealer in shares, so the earlier capital gains basis fell away. On the alternative assumption that capital gains arose, section 52(2) could not be invoked on the facts as understood, and the transfers were also covered by the statutory exclusion for gifts under section 47(iii). The addition therefore failed and the transfers were not taxable as capital gains.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 11:51:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65891" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (2) TMI 16 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26893</link>
      <description>Share-transfer receipts were treated as business income because the later binding view held the assessee to be a dealer in shares, so the earlier capital gains basis fell away. On the alternative assumption that capital gains arose, section 52(2) could not be invoked on the facts as understood, and the transfers were also covered by the statutory exclusion for gifts under section 47(iii). The addition therefore failed and the transfers were not taxable as capital gains.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26893</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>