<?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>1999 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15804</link>
    <description>Protected tenancy under the applicable rent law could not be ignored in valuing the property, because the licensee in possession became a deemed protected tenant on the statutory amendment. In that setting, fair market value had to be assessed on the rent capitalisation method rather than the land and building method. The competent authority&#039;s failure to consider the tenancy status and the departmental valuation material meant the sale consideration could not be treated as understated, and acquisition on that ground was not sustainable. Interconnection between the transferor and transferee companies, including common directors and shareholders, did not displace the legal effect of the protected tenancy.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 29 Aug 2009 12:12:27 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54804" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 49 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15804</link>
      <description>Protected tenancy under the applicable rent law could not be ignored in valuing the property, because the licensee in possession became a deemed protected tenant on the statutory amendment. In that setting, fair market value had to be assessed on the rent capitalisation method rather than the land and building method. The competent authority&#039;s failure to consider the tenancy status and the departmental valuation material meant the sale consideration could not be treated as understated, and acquisition on that ground was not sustainable. Interconnection between the transferor and transferee companies, including common directors and shareholders, did not displace the legal effect of the protected tenancy.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 22 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15804</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>