<?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>1979 (2) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36218</link>
    <description>A firm&#039;s release deed vesting partnership property in one partner, supported by account adjustment and operative conveyance terms, was treated as a real sale rather than a mere internal reallocation; section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act was therefore attracted. The same transaction also amounted to a transfer of a capital asset, so capital gains were chargeable under section 45, while the exemption for gifts under section 47(iii) was unavailable because consideration had been adjusted and the transfer was not a gift in the ordinary sense. The excess of market value over consideration was further liable to gift-tax under section 4(1)(a), and a firm was capable of being a &quot;person&quot; for that purpose.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:11:16 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74764" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (2) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36218</link>
      <description>A firm&#039;s release deed vesting partnership property in one partner, supported by account adjustment and operative conveyance terms, was treated as a real sale rather than a mere internal reallocation; section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act was therefore attracted. The same transaction also amounted to a transfer of a capital asset, so capital gains were chargeable under section 45, while the exemption for gifts under section 47(iii) was unavailable because consideration had been adjusted and the transfer was not a gift in the ordinary sense. The excess of market value over consideration was further liable to gift-tax under section 4(1)(a), and a firm was capable of being a &quot;person&quot; for that purpose.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 16 Feb 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=36218</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>