<?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>1965 (4) TMI 19 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49317</link>
    <description>Under a lease deed that separately provides for premium and rent, an instalment described as premium is capital in nature when it represents the price for parting with the lessor&#039;s interest and conferring the leasehold right. Rent remains a recurring payment for continued enjoyment of the property and is revenue in nature. The character of the premium is not changed merely because it is payable in instalments or because the deed contains a default clause. Read as a whole, the document and surrounding circumstances supported the contractual description, and the premium was treated as a capital receipt rather than disguised rent, in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2022 15:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=87797" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1965 (4) TMI 19 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49317</link>
      <description>Under a lease deed that separately provides for premium and rent, an instalment described as premium is capital in nature when it represents the price for parting with the lessor&#039;s interest and conferring the leasehold right. Rent remains a recurring payment for continued enjoyment of the property and is revenue in nature. The character of the premium is not changed merely because it is payable in instalments or because the deed contains a default clause. Read as a whole, the document and surrounding circumstances supported the contractual description, and the premium was treated as a capital receipt rather than disguised rent, in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 1965 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49317</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>