<?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 (11) TMI 460 - SC Order</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174645</link>
    <description>In land acquisition valuation, deduction towards development charges may be applied from enhanced compensation where the percentage adopted is reasonable in light of the location and comparable precedents. The Supreme Court noted that deductions of 30% to 40% had been approved in similar cases depending on development requirements, and held that the High Court&#039;s deduction of 40% in this matter was proper. The enhanced compensation as affirmed by the High Court was left undisturbed and no interference was warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Aug 2016 16:23:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=401266" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (11) TMI 460 - SC Order</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174645</link>
      <description>In land acquisition valuation, deduction towards development charges may be applied from enhanced compensation where the percentage adopted is reasonable in light of the location and comparable precedents. The Supreme Court noted that deductions of 30% to 40% had been approved in similar cases depending on development requirements, and held that the High Court&#039;s deduction of 40% in this matter was proper. The enhanced compensation as affirmed by the High Court was left undisturbed and no interference was warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Nov 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174645</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>