https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56141 The ITAT allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the transfer of property to a subsidiary company was not a colorable device to avoid tax. The ITAT determined that the property was a capital asset, exempt under section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act, and should be assessed under section 22. The ITAT also exempted the price difference under section 47(iv) and directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest accordingly, resulting in the deletion of the addition and cancellation of additional tax, a favorable outcome for the assessee. en-us Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 01 Dec 2010 18:25:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56141 The ITAT allowed the appeal in part, ruling that the transfer of property to a subsidiary company was not a colorable device to avoid tax. The ITAT determined that the property was a capital asset, exempt under section 47(iv) of the Income Tax Act, and should be assessed under section 22. The ITAT also exempted the price difference under section 47(iv) and directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest accordingly, resulting in the deletion of the addition and cancellation of additional tax, a favorable outcome for the assessee. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 24 Mar 1994 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=56141