<?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>2002 (8) TMI 91 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12363</link>
    <description>For wealth-tax valuation of a superstructure erected by joint lessees on leased land, the rental capitalisation method had to be applied by reference to the rent and the capitalisation period, without adding a reversionary element. The lessees had constructed the building at their own cost, owned it during the lease term, and were liable to wealth-tax on that superstructure. As the assessees had no reversionary interest in the building, the lessor&#039;s reversionary interest in the land could not be imported into the valuation of the superstructure. Valuation had to be made as on the valuation date, and the remaining lease term for the land did not reduce the value of the building owned by the lessees.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Feb 2010 15:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51375" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (8) TMI 91 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12363</link>
      <description>For wealth-tax valuation of a superstructure erected by joint lessees on leased land, the rental capitalisation method had to be applied by reference to the rent and the capitalisation period, without adding a reversionary element. The lessees had constructed the building at their own cost, owned it during the lease term, and were liable to wealth-tax on that superstructure. As the assessees had no reversionary interest in the building, the lessor&#039;s reversionary interest in the land could not be imported into the valuation of the superstructure. Valuation had to be made as on the valuation date, and the remaining lease term for the land did not reduce the value of the building owned by the lessees.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12363</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>