<?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>1974 (4) TMI 3 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9204</link>
    <description>The court held that 50% of the unearned increase payable to the lessor should be deducted from the property&#039;s valuation for wealth-tax purposes, as it either affected the property&#039;s value or constituted a debt owed by the assessee. The court disagreed with the view that it formed part of the valuation and ruled in favor of the assessee against the revenue. The question was answered in the negative, with no costs awarded.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48228" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1974 (4) TMI 3 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9204</link>
      <description>The court held that 50% of the unearned increase payable to the lessor should be deducted from the property&#039;s valuation for wealth-tax purposes, as it either affected the property&#039;s value or constituted a debt owed by the assessee. The court disagreed with the view that it formed part of the valuation and ruled in favor of the assessee against the revenue. The question was answered in the negative, with no costs awarded.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 04 Apr 1974 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9204</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>