<?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>1983 (10) TMI 20 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27700</link>
    <description>Transfer of a business as a going concern to a private limited company was tested by its legal form, and the company was treated as a separate legal entity from the firm. The fact that the partners became shareholders did not negate the legal reality of the transfer, so the substance-over-form argument was rejected on these facts. The excess realised on the transfer was therefore not regarded as fictional income or fictional gain, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:10:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=66698" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (10) TMI 20 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27700</link>
      <description>Transfer of a business as a going concern to a private limited company was tested by its legal form, and the company was treated as a separate legal entity from the firm. The fact that the partners became shareholders did not negate the legal reality of the transfer, so the substance-over-form argument was rejected on these facts. The excess realised on the transfer was therefore not regarded as fictional income or fictional gain, and the issue was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=27700</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>