<?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>1989 (4) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65196</link>
    <description>On a partial partition, the asset allotted to coparceners ceases to belong to the Hindu undivided family, so sale proceeds traceable to that asset cannot be included in the family&#039;s wealth. For residential house property, Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules is the prescribed valuation method where applicable, and the first valuation by the Wealth-tax Officer is governed by that rule rather than automatic reference to the Valuation Officer; the assessee succeeded on this issue by majority. The valuation of the Hissar property and the deduction claim for business liabilities were sent back for fresh consideration because the appellate authority had not properly adjudicated them and had applied an incorrect approach to deductible debts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 11:34:02 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103636" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (4) TMI 133 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65196</link>
      <description>On a partial partition, the asset allotted to coparceners ceases to belong to the Hindu undivided family, so sale proceeds traceable to that asset cannot be included in the family&#039;s wealth. For residential house property, Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules is the prescribed valuation method where applicable, and the first valuation by the Wealth-tax Officer is governed by that rule rather than automatic reference to the Valuation Officer; the assessee succeeded on this issue by majority. The valuation of the Hissar property and the deduction claim for business liabilities were sent back for fresh consideration because the appellate authority had not properly adjudicated them and had applied an incorrect approach to deductible debts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Apr 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65196</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>