<?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 (2) TMI 91 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66319</link>
    <description>Estate duty valuation of a deceased partner&#039;s interest must be made by valuing the partnership as a whole under the statutory rules, and a single asset such as closing stock cannot be selectively revalued to inflate the estate. The balance-sheet value is relevant, but isolated revaluation to add an assumed future profit element is impermissible; the addition was therefore deleted. For a joint family residential house, the exemption under section 33(1)(n) applies to the house as a whole rather than by isolating the deceased&#039;s fractional share, so the entire house value was exempt. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on both points.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2011 15:38:23 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104754" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (2) TMI 91 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66319</link>
      <description>Estate duty valuation of a deceased partner&#039;s interest must be made by valuing the partnership as a whole under the statutory rules, and a single asset such as closing stock cannot be selectively revalued to inflate the estate. The balance-sheet value is relevant, but isolated revaluation to add an assumed future profit element is impermissible; the addition was therefore deleted. For a joint family residential house, the exemption under section 33(1)(n) applies to the house as a whole rather than by isolating the deceased&#039;s fractional share, so the entire house value was exempt. The Revenue&#039;s challenge failed on both points.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Feb 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66319</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>