<?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>1985 (1) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63381</link>
    <description>Land already acquired before the deceased&#039;s death was not to be valued at open market price for estate duty where the acquisition compensation was ascertainable and verified from the record; the valuation was to be aligned with that compensation on factual verification. Vacant land subject to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had to be valued by accounting for ceiling limits, transfer restrictions and the possibility of statutory acquisition, so land within the ceiling could retain the reduced value already fixed, while any excess land had to be valued on a depressed cost basis rather than full market value. The matter was therefore sustained in part and remanded in part for verification and fresh valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Jan 2011 16:45:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=101823" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (1) TMI 121 - ITAT DELHI-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63381</link>
      <description>Land already acquired before the deceased&#039;s death was not to be valued at open market price for estate duty where the acquisition compensation was ascertainable and verified from the record; the valuation was to be aligned with that compensation on factual verification. Vacant land subject to the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 had to be valued by accounting for ceiling limits, transfer restrictions and the possibility of statutory acquisition, so land within the ceiling could retain the reduced value already fixed, while any excess land had to be valued on a depressed cost basis rather than full market value. The matter was therefore sustained in part and remanded in part for verification and fresh valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63381</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>