<?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>1976 (8) TMI 14 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37874</link>
    <description>Transfer of buses by a Hindu undivided family to a private limited company was treated as a sale for income-tax purposes because the company was a separate legal entity and the transaction was for consideration; family shareholding did not alter its legal character. Reassessment under section 147(b) was valid because an audit note supplied fresh information that depreciation had been wrongly allowed and income had escaped assessment. A taxable gift arose in respect of route rights attached to the buses, as they had economic value and no consideration was assigned to them. Rectification withdrawing development rebate was valid because the buses had been transferred within the statutory period, making the earlier allowance a mistake apparent from the record.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 01 Apr 2010 15:31:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=76420" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 14 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37874</link>
      <description>Transfer of buses by a Hindu undivided family to a private limited company was treated as a sale for income-tax purposes because the company was a separate legal entity and the transaction was for consideration; family shareholding did not alter its legal character. Reassessment under section 147(b) was valid because an audit note supplied fresh information that depreciation had been wrongly allowed and income had escaped assessment. A taxable gift arose in respect of route rights attached to the buses, as they had economic value and no consideration was assigned to them. Rectification withdrawing development rebate was valid because the buses had been transferred within the statutory period, making the earlier allowance a mistake apparent from the record.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=37874</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>