<?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 (12) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35377</link>
    <description>HC dismissed the appeal, holding Section 50C was not applicable because the property was a business asset, not a capital asset. The Tribunal rightly concluded the assessee treated the property as a business asset in its accounts and advances to the owner, so valuation under Section 50C (which applies to capital assets) could not be invoked. The appellate authority properly restored the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed (Rs.5 crores), and the Assessing Officer&#039;s invocation of Section 50C was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 14 Nov 2025 14:14:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=73964" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (12) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35377</link>
      <description>HC dismissed the appeal, holding Section 50C was not applicable because the property was a business asset, not a capital asset. The Tribunal rightly concluded the assessee treated the property as a business asset in its accounts and advances to the owner, so valuation under Section 50C (which applies to capital assets) could not be invoked. The appellate authority properly restored the sale consideration reflected in the sale deed (Rs.5 crores), and the Assessing Officer&#039;s invocation of Section 50C was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35377</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>