<?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>2023 (12) TMI 549 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446865</link>
    <description>Kerala HC rejected a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the Central Government to notify long-term specified assets under Section 54EE of the Income Tax Act for capital gains exemption. The petitioner, who had capital gains from a slump sale, argued the government&#039;s failure to issue the notification was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The HC held that issuing notifications under Section 54EE is subordinate legislation within the executive&#039;s discretionary power, not subject to judicial mandamus. The court found no discrimination or constitutional violation, rejecting claims of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, noting the petitioner could not claim exemption without proper notification of specified assets.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Dec 2024 17:04:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=734960" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (12) TMI 549 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446865</link>
      <description>Kerala HC rejected a writ petition seeking mandamus to compel the Central Government to notify long-term specified assets under Section 54EE of the Income Tax Act for capital gains exemption. The petitioner, who had capital gains from a slump sale, argued the government&#039;s failure to issue the notification was arbitrary and violated Article 14. The HC held that issuing notifications under Section 54EE is subordinate legislation within the executive&#039;s discretionary power, not subject to judicial mandamus. The court found no discrimination or constitutional violation, rejecting claims of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation, noting the petitioner could not claim exemption without proper notification of specified assets.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 27 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=446865</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>