<?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>1996 (6) TMI 119 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70444</link>
    <description>The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to revalue the property using State PWD rates after hearing both parties. Additionally, the Tribunal directed a 10% deduction for joint ownership, partly allowing the appeals and effectively addressing both the valuation method and joint ownership deduction issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:48:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108789" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (6) TMI 119 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70444</link>
      <description>The Tribunal remitted the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) to revalue the property using State PWD rates after hearing both parties. Additionally, the Tribunal directed a 10% deduction for joint ownership, partly allowing the appeals and effectively addressing both the valuation method and joint ownership deduction issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70444</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>