<?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>2005 (1) TMI 325 - ITAT DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62738</link>
    <description>Property valuation for tax purposes must reflect the asset&#039;s actual legal and possessory character. Where a property has been leased to the same tenant, the tenant remains in occupation after expiry of the lease, and sub-tenants are also in possession, the vacant portion cannot be treated as land in the owner&#039;s unfettered possession unless there is evidence that it has reverted free of leasehold rights. In such circumstances, the yield method based on rental value is the appropriate basis for valuing the entire property, including the disputed vacant strip, rather than fair market value as an open plot. The assessee&#039;s valuation was therefore accepted and the addition on the vacant portion was not sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 13:26:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101184" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (1) TMI 325 - ITAT DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62738</link>
      <description>Property valuation for tax purposes must reflect the asset&#039;s actual legal and possessory character. Where a property has been leased to the same tenant, the tenant remains in occupation after expiry of the lease, and sub-tenants are also in possession, the vacant portion cannot be treated as land in the owner&#039;s unfettered possession unless there is evidence that it has reverted free of leasehold rights. In such circumstances, the yield method based on rental value is the appropriate basis for valuing the entire property, including the disputed vacant strip, rather than fair market value as an open plot. The assessee&#039;s valuation was therefore accepted and the addition on the vacant portion was not sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62738</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>