<?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 (1) TMI 38 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28231</link>
    <description>Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked because the Revenue failed to prove actual understatement of sale consideration. In the absence of material showing understatement, fair market value could not be substituted for the stated price to compute capital gains. On that factual basis, no taxable capital gain arose on the Revenue&#039;s adopted method, and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:44:19 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (1) TMI 38 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28231</link>
      <description>Section 52 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 could not be invoked because the Revenue failed to prove actual understatement of sale consideration. In the absence of material showing understatement, fair market value could not be substituted for the stated price to compute capital gains. On that factual basis, no taxable capital gain arose on the Revenue&#039;s adopted method, and the assessee&#039;s position was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 11 Jan 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>