<?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>2001 (6) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12973</link>
    <description>Wealth-tax liability must be determined by the property&#039;s value on the relevant valuation date, not by a later sale price realised after that date. A subsequent market realisation does not justify reopening a concluded assessment to substitute the later sale proceeds for the earlier valuation. The Tribunal was therefore correct in rejecting reassessment on that basis, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 16:32:07 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51983" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (6) TMI 12 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12973</link>
      <description>Wealth-tax liability must be determined by the property&#039;s value on the relevant valuation date, not by a later sale price realised after that date. A subsequent market realisation does not justify reopening a concluded assessment to substitute the later sale proceeds for the earlier valuation. The Tribunal was therefore correct in rejecting reassessment on that basis, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 18 Jun 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12973</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>