<?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>1979 (12) TMI 155 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168650</link>
    <description>A pending and unacquiesced claim for enhanced land acquisition compensation was treated as a single surviving right to receive compensation at market value on the date of acquisition, and that right remained property chargeable to estate duty on the date of death. Its value had to be estimated by reference to the relevant date and litigation risk, not by treating a later civil court enhancement as the property itself. Notices under section 59(a) and section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were unsustainable because they proceeded on the premise that the acquired land still formed part of the estate and that later enhancement disclosed an apparent mistake; that was a change of opinion, not rectification.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2015 15:27:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=379069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1979 (12) TMI 155 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168650</link>
      <description>A pending and unacquiesced claim for enhanced land acquisition compensation was treated as a single surviving right to receive compensation at market value on the date of acquisition, and that right remained property chargeable to estate duty on the date of death. Its value had to be estimated by reference to the relevant date and litigation risk, not by treating a later civil court enhancement as the property itself. Notices under section 59(a) and section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were unsustainable because they proceeded on the premise that the acquired land still formed part of the estate and that later enhancement disclosed an apparent mistake; that was a change of opinion, not rectification.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=168650</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>