<?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>2011 (9) TMI 1261 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459250</link>
    <description>Contemporaneous auction records, prior admissions and later correspondence showed that the sale was limited to movable assets, including plant, machinery and scrap, while land, buildings and other permanent structures were excluded. The purchaser&#039;s own earlier position supported that it had bought only movables and was entitled to remove only those items from the factory premises. The valuation report did not establish that the entire assessed asset base had been sold, and the finding that heavy machinery and sheds attached to the earth were immovable property was upheld. On that basis, no claim to the remaining assets beyond the delivered movables was sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Dec 2024 14:44:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=781246" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (9) TMI 1261 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459250</link>
      <description>Contemporaneous auction records, prior admissions and later correspondence showed that the sale was limited to movable assets, including plant, machinery and scrap, while land, buildings and other permanent structures were excluded. The purchaser&#039;s own earlier position supported that it had bought only movables and was entitled to remove only those items from the factory premises. The valuation report did not establish that the entire assessed asset base had been sold, and the finding that heavy machinery and sheds attached to the earth were immovable property was upheld. On that basis, no claim to the remaining assets beyond the delivered movables was sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Sep 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=459250</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>