<?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>1988 (2) TMI 85 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55189</link>
    <description>Capital gains from the sale of the property were taxable because the estate duty payment made to the Assistant Controller was only an application of the sale proceeds after accrual and not a deductible expenditure under section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The will&#039;s direction to meet estate duty from the sale realisation did not change the character of the property, which was sold free from encumbrance, and the estate duty charge under section 74 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 attached to the estate as a whole rather than to the specific asset sold. Authorities relied on by the assessee were distinguished on their facts, and the taxpayer&#039;s contention was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:37:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=93652" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (2) TMI 85 - ITAT AHMEDABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55189</link>
      <description>Capital gains from the sale of the property were taxable because the estate duty payment made to the Assistant Controller was only an application of the sale proceeds after accrual and not a deductible expenditure under section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The will&#039;s direction to meet estate duty from the sale realisation did not change the character of the property, which was sold free from encumbrance, and the estate duty charge under section 74 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 attached to the estate as a whole rather than to the specific asset sold. Authorities relied on by the assessee were distinguished on their facts, and the taxpayer&#039;s contention was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=55189</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>