<?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>1972 (5) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199082</link>
    <description>A purported lease that could not operate as a valid long-term grant was treated, after acceptance of rent, as creating a landlord-tenant relationship under general law. The renewal clause was unenforceable for apportionment because it depended on future agreement and did not fix definitive terms, so the apportionment proceeded without giving that clause effect. In assessing compensation for acquired land, market value was to be judged by what a willing purchaser would pay, with reference to comparable sales, locality development, and deductions for roads, drains, and development costs. On that approach, the compensation assessment was not shown to be unreasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 19 Feb 2018 17:51:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=509617" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1972 (5) TMI 71 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199082</link>
      <description>A purported lease that could not operate as a valid long-term grant was treated, after acceptance of rent, as creating a landlord-tenant relationship under general law. The renewal clause was unenforceable for apportionment because it depended on future agreement and did not fix definitive terms, so the apportionment proceeded without giving that clause effect. In assessing compensation for acquired land, market value was to be judged by what a willing purchaser would pay, with reference to comparable sales, locality development, and deductions for roads, drains, and development costs. On that approach, the compensation assessment was not shown to be unreasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 03 May 1972 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199082</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>