<?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>2012 (5) TMI 151 - ITAT Mumbai</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213187</link>
    <description>Land earmarked for hotel development was treated as falling within the industrial-purpose exception in the Wealth-tax Act, because the planning notification permitted development subject to conditions and the assessee acquired the property within the relevant two-year period. The land was therefore not assessable to wealth tax for the assessment year concerned. For valuation, a 40% deduction was allowed because the market rate was taken from smaller comparable plots and the subject property was a large tract. Development expenditure for works such as drainage, approach road and compound wall was also deductible as directly affecting market value, but the separate claim for deferment value was rejected for lack of supporting material.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 12 May 2012 05:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=186589" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (5) TMI 151 - ITAT Mumbai</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213187</link>
      <description>Land earmarked for hotel development was treated as falling within the industrial-purpose exception in the Wealth-tax Act, because the planning notification permitted development subject to conditions and the assessee acquired the property within the relevant two-year period. The land was therefore not assessable to wealth tax for the assessment year concerned. For valuation, a 40% deduction was allowed because the market rate was taken from smaller comparable plots and the subject property was a large tract. Development expenditure for works such as drainage, approach road and compound wall was also deductible as directly affecting market value, but the separate claim for deferment value was rejected for lack of supporting material.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=213187</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>