<?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>1979 (1) TMI 129 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62468</link>
    <description>Estate duty and wealth-tax valuation principles are applied to multiple assets: the Calcutta house valuation was upheld because the rental-multiplier basis was not shown to be excessive; exemption claims for Kunja Kanta House and the Tulsipur house failed for want of strict statutory proof; the vacant land attached to the Tulsipur buildings was remitted for reconsideration; the Bhubaneswar land valuation was reduced to its nearer acquisition-based figure; unquoted Eastern Motors shares were sent back for fresh valuation under rule 1-D; the life policy and household goods were sustained in the estate; and the Rs. 85,000 asset addition was deleted because the debt had become unrealisable and no longer formed part of the estate.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 16:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=100914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (1) TMI 129 - ITAT CUTTACK</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62468</link>
      <description>Estate duty and wealth-tax valuation principles are applied to multiple assets: the Calcutta house valuation was upheld because the rental-multiplier basis was not shown to be excessive; exemption claims for Kunja Kanta House and the Tulsipur house failed for want of strict statutory proof; the vacant land attached to the Tulsipur buildings was remitted for reconsideration; the Bhubaneswar land valuation was reduced to its nearer acquisition-based figure; unquoted Eastern Motors shares were sent back for fresh valuation under rule 1-D; the life policy and household goods were sustained in the estate; and the Rs. 85,000 asset addition was deleted because the debt had become unrealisable and no longer formed part of the estate.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 18 Jan 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62468</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>