<?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 (1) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12664</link>
    <description>Valuation of a godown for estate-duty purposes may use a multiplier reflecting prevailing market interest rates; long-term fixed-deposit rates were treated as relevant, supporting use of a multiplier of 10 rather than an earlier multiplier adopted under different market conditions. In valuing a deceased coparcener&#039;s interest in Hindu undivided family property, a deduction for the marriage of unmarried daughters was sustained because their interests could not be excluded from the valuation exercise under section 39(1). The restricted deduction under section 33(1)(k) was not treated as controlling in that context. The valuation and deduction approach was regarded as reasonable and legally supportable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 18:24:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51675" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (1) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12664</link>
      <description>Valuation of a godown for estate-duty purposes may use a multiplier reflecting prevailing market interest rates; long-term fixed-deposit rates were treated as relevant, supporting use of a multiplier of 10 rather than an earlier multiplier adopted under different market conditions. In valuing a deceased coparcener&#039;s interest in Hindu undivided family property, a deduction for the marriage of unmarried daughters was sustained because their interests could not be excluded from the valuation exercise under section 39(1). The restricted deduction under section 33(1)(k) was not treated as controlling in that context. The valuation and deduction approach was regarded as reasonable and legally supportable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jan 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12664</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>