<?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>2015 (10) TMI 2859 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458217</link>
    <description>Section 50C of the Income-tax Act was considered in relation to transfer of tenancy rights, and the Tribunal&#039;s view was that such transfer does not amount to transfer of land, building or both and therefore falls outside the section. That approach followed its earlier decision in Shri Atul G. Puranik, which the Revenue had already accepted. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s proposed questions did not raise any substantial question of law for consideration.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Oct 2024 20:00:53 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=772929" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (10) TMI 2859 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458217</link>
      <description>Section 50C of the Income-tax Act was considered in relation to transfer of tenancy rights, and the Tribunal&#039;s view was that such transfer does not amount to transfer of land, building or both and therefore falls outside the section. That approach followed its earlier decision in Shri Atul G. Puranik, which the Revenue had already accepted. On that basis, the Revenue&#039;s proposed questions did not raise any substantial question of law for consideration.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458217</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>