<?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>1968 (2) TMI 19 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7287</link>
    <description>The Kerala HC upheld an additional wealth-tax scheme for urban lands and buildings that used population-based exemption limits, finding no violation of Article 14. It held that the levy was aimed at taxing capital value rather than market value, that rural property could be fully exempted because urban property generally yields higher returns, and that larger cities could rationally receive higher exemption limits because the gap between market value and productivity is typically wider. The Court found the classification to be reasonably related to the legislative object and held that the petitioner had not shown hostile discrimination in a taxing statute.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:39:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=46338" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1968 (2) TMI 19 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7287</link>
      <description>The Kerala HC upheld an additional wealth-tax scheme for urban lands and buildings that used population-based exemption limits, finding no violation of Article 14. It held that the levy was aimed at taxing capital value rather than market value, that rural property could be fully exempted because urban property generally yields higher returns, and that larger cities could rationally receive higher exemption limits because the gap between market value and productivity is typically wider. The Court found the classification to be reasonably related to the legislative object and held that the petitioner had not shown hostile discrimination in a taxing statute.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 23 Feb 1968 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7287</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>