<?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 (3) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59065</link>
    <description>Distribution of partnership assets on dissolution, including by auction among the partners under a consent arrangement, was treated as a working out of partners&#039; rights rather than a transfer inter vivos. The amount received by each partner represented his or her share in the realised assets, so it fell within the exception for distribution of capital assets on dissolution and did not attract capital gains tax. The addition was therefore deleted and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Dec 2010 17:27:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97519" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 99 - ITAT BOMBAY-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59065</link>
      <description>Distribution of partnership assets on dissolution, including by auction among the partners under a consent arrangement, was treated as a working out of partners&#039; rights rather than a transfer inter vivos. The amount received by each partner represented his or her share in the realised assets, so it fell within the exception for distribution of capital assets on dissolution and did not attract capital gains tax. The addition was therefore deleted and the Revenue&#039;s appeals failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 27 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59065</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>