<?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 708 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334690</link>
    <description>Valuation of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act is governed by section 7 and Schedule III, and Rule 6&#039;s specified-area formula applies only where a law in force requires a larger minimum open space. The Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulations, 1996 were framed to regulate future construction and development, came into force on publication, and did not require existing completed structures to be retrospectively aligned with them. Because these Regulations were substantive regulatory norms with penal consequences, they could not be imported through Rule 6&#039;s proviso to revalue an already existing property. The Regulations were therefore treated as prospective and inapplicable for valuation purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2017 16:22:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=448346" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (11) TMI 708 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334690</link>
      <description>Valuation of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act is governed by section 7 and Schedule III, and Rule 6&#039;s specified-area formula applies only where a law in force requires a larger minimum open space. The Jaipur Development Authority (Jaipur Region Building) Regulations, 1996 were framed to regulate future construction and development, came into force on publication, and did not require existing completed structures to be retrospectively aligned with them. Because these Regulations were substantive regulatory norms with penal consequences, they could not be imported through Rule 6&#039;s proviso to revalue an already existing property. The Regulations were therefore treated as prospective and inapplicable for valuation purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=334690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>