<?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 (8) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34347</link>
    <description>Surplus received under an escrow arrangement on the sale of promoters&#039; shares was treated as taxable income, not a capital receipt, because the receipt arose from an arranged transaction in which the assessee actively facilitated the sale, arranged brokerage and marketing, and secured the agreed price for the divesting promoters. The analysis applied the wide, inclusive definition of income and noted that section 56 taxes income not otherwise chargeable under a specific head. On those facts, the surplus was characterised as a calculated gain from the transaction rather than a casual or windfall receipt, and the authorities cited by the assessee were distinguished.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72970" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34347</link>
      <description>Surplus received under an escrow arrangement on the sale of promoters&#039; shares was treated as taxable income, not a capital receipt, because the receipt arose from an arranged transaction in which the assessee actively facilitated the sale, arranged brokerage and marketing, and secured the agreed price for the divesting promoters. The analysis applied the wide, inclusive definition of income and noted that section 56 taxes income not otherwise chargeable under a specific head. On those facts, the surplus was characterised as a calculated gain from the transaction rather than a casual or windfall receipt, and the authorities cited by the assessee were distinguished.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=34347</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>