<?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>1995 (4) TMI 303 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189647</link>
    <description>Under the municipal valuation scheme, machinery used in a building may be excluded from rateable value even if embedded in the structure and forming part of a central air-conditioning system; the related false ceiling also followed that exclusion because it was installed only to support the system. Wooden partitions, however, were treated as part of the original building design and remained includible in construction cost, and ground rent on Government land was also properly included on the facts. Notional interest on the owner&#039;s own capital was not an actual expenditure and could not be added to construction cost for rateable valuation, so the valuation had to be recomputed after excluding that item.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:04:28 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=455454" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1995 (4) TMI 303 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189647</link>
      <description>Under the municipal valuation scheme, machinery used in a building may be excluded from rateable value even if embedded in the structure and forming part of a central air-conditioning system; the related false ceiling also followed that exclusion because it was installed only to support the system. Wooden partitions, however, were treated as part of the original building design and remained includible in construction cost, and ground rent on Government land was also properly included on the facts. Notional interest on the owner&#039;s own capital was not an actual expenditure and could not be added to construction cost for rateable valuation, so the valuation had to be recomputed after excluding that item.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Apr 1995 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189647</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>