<?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 (10) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217435</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s treatment of share valuation raised a specific legal question on whether the value of shares of M/s Jai Prakash Industries Limited had to be taken at the lowest quotation available on any stock exchange, even though the assessee was assessed elsewhere. The High Court noted the Tribunal&#039;s failure to comply with its earlier direction to draw up a statement of case and refer that question of law. It therefore framed the question for reference and directed the Tribunal to prepare the statement of case and send the matter to the High Court within four months, while also requiring compliance with the earlier order.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2012 09:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=190810" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (10) TMI 375 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217435</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s treatment of share valuation raised a specific legal question on whether the value of shares of M/s Jai Prakash Industries Limited had to be taken at the lowest quotation available on any stock exchange, even though the assessee was assessed elsewhere. The High Court noted the Tribunal&#039;s failure to comply with its earlier direction to draw up a statement of case and refer that question of law. It therefore framed the question for reference and directed the Tribunal to prepare the statement of case and send the matter to the High Court within four months, while also requiring compliance with the earlier order.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=217435</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>