<?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>1981 (8) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28634</link>
    <description>A retiring partner&#039;s receipt representing his share in the difference between the book value and market value of the firm&#039;s net assets was held not taxable as capital gains. The Court treated retirement as akin to dissolution for this purpose and found that the amount was only the working out and settlement of the partner&#039;s existing share in partnership assets. No sale, exchange, transfer, relinquishment or extinguishment of rights in favour of the continuing partners was involved, and the legal character of the receipt did not change merely because accounts were fully valued or the amount was paid in a lump sum. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:59:26 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67631" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (8) TMI 13 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28634</link>
      <description>A retiring partner&#039;s receipt representing his share in the difference between the book value and market value of the firm&#039;s net assets was held not taxable as capital gains. The Court treated retirement as akin to dissolution for this purpose and found that the amount was only the working out and settlement of the partner&#039;s existing share in partnership assets. No sale, exchange, transfer, relinquishment or extinguishment of rights in favour of the continuing partners was involved, and the legal character of the receipt did not change merely because accounts were fully valued or the amount was paid in a lump sum. The reference was answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>