<?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>1996 (2) TMI 600 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313243</link>
    <description>A High Court-sanctioned amalgamation scheme can fall within the Bombay Stamp Act definitions of &quot;conveyance&quot; and &quot;instrument&quot; because it effects transfer of property through a compromise or arrangement, so stamp duty may be levied on the instrument and not on the judicial act itself. The challenge to section 2(g)(iv) and the levy therefore failed. For valuation, an amalgamation transfers the undertaking as a going concern, so stamp duty must be computed on the consideration reflected in the share exchange ratio or other scheme consideration, not by separately valuing the transferor&#039;s assets and liabilities. The separate asset-and-liability method was disapproved.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2024 11:10:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=748853" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 600 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313243</link>
      <description>A High Court-sanctioned amalgamation scheme can fall within the Bombay Stamp Act definitions of &quot;conveyance&quot; and &quot;instrument&quot; because it effects transfer of property through a compromise or arrangement, so stamp duty may be levied on the instrument and not on the judicial act itself. The challenge to section 2(g)(iv) and the levy therefore failed. For valuation, an amalgamation transfers the undertaking as a going concern, so stamp duty must be computed on the consideration reflected in the share exchange ratio or other scheme consideration, not by separately valuing the transferor&#039;s assets and liabilities. The separate asset-and-liability method was disapproved.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313243</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>