<?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>1986 (10) TMI 79 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62818</link>
    <description>For wealth-tax valuation of a commercially used flat, valuation principles from acquisition or compensation matters could not be applied automatically. The relevant rule in the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 provided a multiplier only for partly non-residential residential buildings, while the asset here was exclusively non-residential. In view of the property&#039;s commercial character, location in Connaught Place, and the surrounding economic setting, the adopted multiplier of 12.5 was found reasonable and there was no material to show that a lower value was justified. The Wealth-tax Officer&#039;s valuation was therefore upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jan 2011 18:52:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101263" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (10) TMI 79 - ITAT DELHI-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62818</link>
      <description>For wealth-tax valuation of a commercially used flat, valuation principles from acquisition or compensation matters could not be applied automatically. The relevant rule in the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 provided a multiplier only for partly non-residential residential buildings, while the asset here was exclusively non-residential. In view of the property&#039;s commercial character, location in Connaught Place, and the surrounding economic setting, the adopted multiplier of 12.5 was found reasonable and there was no material to show that a lower value was justified. The Wealth-tax Officer&#039;s valuation was therefore upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Oct 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=62818</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>