https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191921 In land acquisition valuation, the High Court's use of belting for a large urban tract and capitalisation on a rental basis for the building was upheld because the property's physical features and locality supported differential treatment, and no special or unique potential value was proved beyond what had already been considered. The appellate court found no legal or factual error in the valuation method, and the capitalisation rate was not shown to be unduly low. Concurrent findings based on relevant evidence therefore warranted no interference with the compensation fixed by the High Court. en-us Thu, 26 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 May 2017 15:25:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191921 In land acquisition valuation, the High Court's use of belting for a large urban tract and capitalisation on a rental basis for the building was upheld because the property's physical features and locality supported differential treatment, and no special or unique potential value was proved beyond what had already been considered. The appellate court found no legal or factual error in the valuation method, and the capitalisation rate was not shown to be unduly low. Concurrent findings based on relevant evidence therefore warranted no interference with the compensation fixed by the High Court. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 26 Sep 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191921