<?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>1986 (3) TMI 332 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178173</link>
    <description>Apportionment of acquisition compensation depends on the real nature of the interests held by the owner and lessee, and the existing 7:1 division was upheld because the lessee had only a limited leasehold interest while the owner retained the substantial proprietary interest. Market value must be fixed by reliable comparable sales and the development potential of the acquired urban land; on that basis, the valuation was enhanced to Rs. 105 per square yard, with statutory solatium and interest on the enhanced amount. No separate compensation was awarded for loss of goodwill because the record did not establish a compensable loss under that head.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2016 13:26:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414683" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (3) TMI 332 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178173</link>
      <description>Apportionment of acquisition compensation depends on the real nature of the interests held by the owner and lessee, and the existing 7:1 division was upheld because the lessee had only a limited leasehold interest while the owner retained the substantial proprietary interest. Market value must be fixed by reliable comparable sales and the development potential of the acquired urban land; on that basis, the valuation was enhanced to Rs. 105 per square yard, with statutory solatium and interest on the enhanced amount. No separate compensation was awarded for loss of goodwill because the record did not establish a compensable loss under that head.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Mar 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=178173</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>