<?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>2016 (11) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334063</link>
    <description>The West Bengal stamp valuation framework permits the registering authority to consider not only existing use but also the potential value of property when determining market value under the Indian Stamp Act and the relevant Rules. On that basis, disclosure of proposed land use in the registration form was treated as a lawful part of the undervaluation-check mechanism and not contrary to the Rules. At the same time, the valuation scheme contemplates annual market-rate revision and a bounded historical reference period, so an open-ended disclosure period for proposed land use was inconsistent with the statutory design. A time frame, preferably five years, was therefore required for that column.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2016 09:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=446543" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 81 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334063</link>
      <description>The West Bengal stamp valuation framework permits the registering authority to consider not only existing use but also the potential value of property when determining market value under the Indian Stamp Act and the relevant Rules. On that basis, disclosure of proposed land use in the registration form was treated as a lawful part of the undervaluation-check mechanism and not contrary to the Rules. At the same time, the valuation scheme contemplates annual market-rate revision and a bounded historical reference period, so an open-ended disclosure period for proposed land use was inconsistent with the statutory design. A time frame, preferably five years, was therefore required for that column.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334063</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>