<?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>2009 (7) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34200</link>
    <description>Sale and lease transactions were examined to determine whether they were sham arrangements or colourable devices aimed at reducing tax liability. The analysis accepted that consideration was received and lease rentals were paid, and held that mere tax reduction did not, by itself, render the arrangements impermissible. Legitimate tax planning within the law remained permissible, and the principle associated with McDowell applied only where a colourable device or subterfuge was shown. On the facts found by the Tribunal, no material established that the transactions fell outside permissible tax planning, so they were not treated as sham and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 07 Sep 2011 17:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72826" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (7) TMI 23 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34200</link>
      <description>Sale and lease transactions were examined to determine whether they were sham arrangements or colourable devices aimed at reducing tax liability. The analysis accepted that consideration was received and lease rentals were paid, and held that mere tax reduction did not, by itself, render the arrangements impermissible. Legitimate tax planning within the law remained permissible, and the principle associated with McDowell applied only where a colourable device or subterfuge was shown. On the facts found by the Tribunal, no material established that the transactions fell outside permissible tax planning, so they were not treated as sham and no substantial question of law arose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34200</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>