<?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 (3) TMI 13 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12980</link>
    <description>Where immovable property is valued under the Estate Duty Act on the rental yield basis, separate addition or deduction for the reversionary value of land is unwarranted because that method governs the valuation of the property as a whole. The Tribunal held that, once the rental yield method was adopted for both the land and the superstructure, there was no basis to treat any increase in land value as a distinct component or to consider a separate deduction for unearned increase payable to the lessor. The claim for 50 per cent deduction on that account was therefore not admissible, and the referred question was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 May 2009 17:33:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51990" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 13 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12980</link>
      <description>Where immovable property is valued under the Estate Duty Act on the rental yield basis, separate addition or deduction for the reversionary value of land is unwarranted because that method governs the valuation of the property as a whole. The Tribunal held that, once the rental yield method was adopted for both the land and the superstructure, there was no basis to treat any increase in land value as a distinct component or to consider a separate deduction for unearned increase payable to the lessor. The claim for 50 per cent deduction on that account was therefore not admissible, and the referred question was answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12980</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>