<?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 (10) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27302</link>
    <description>A bona fide sale agreement, read with a later enforceable understanding, gave the purchaser a legally overriding right to part of the acquisition compensation, so capital gains were computed only on the amount actually retained by the assessee and not on the full award. The payment to the purchaser was treated as diversion of income by overriding title, because the right attached to the compensation before it became the assessee&#039;s income, rather than as a mere application of income after receipt. The agreement was not frustrated by acquisition, since that contingency was within the parties&#039; contemplation and did not discharge the contract.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:37:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66300" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (10) TMI 35 - ANDHRA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27302</link>
      <description>A bona fide sale agreement, read with a later enforceable understanding, gave the purchaser a legally overriding right to part of the acquisition compensation, so capital gains were computed only on the amount actually retained by the assessee and not on the full award. The payment to the purchaser was treated as diversion of income by overriding title, because the right attached to the compensation before it became the assessee&#039;s income, rather than as a mere application of income after receipt. The agreement was not frustrated by acquisition, since that contingency was within the parties&#039; contemplation and did not discharge the contract.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27302</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>