<?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>2007 (10) TMI 256 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30846</link>
    <description>The court held that the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was not time-barred as the order was passed within the limitation period. Additionally, the court determined that Rs. 82,91,400 was assessable as capital gains and not as income from business activities, as the assessee&#039;s transactions were consistent with capital investments rather than business operations. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, concluding that the Revenue failed to establish the income as business-related.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=69499" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2007 (10) TMI 256 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30846</link>
      <description>The court held that the assessment for the assessment year 1979-80 was not time-barred as the order was passed within the limitation period. Additionally, the court determined that Rs. 82,91,400 was assessable as capital gains and not as income from business activities, as the assessee&#039;s transactions were consistent with capital investments rather than business operations. The court ruled in favor of the assessee on both issues, concluding that the Revenue failed to establish the income as business-related.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=30846</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>