<?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 55 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16037</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Income-tax Department&#039;s pre-emptive purchase order for property valuation. The court upheld the authority&#039;s valuation methodology based on comparisons with higher-priced properties in Bangalore, rejecting petitioners&#039; arguments of undervaluation due to location disadvantages. Emphasizing limited supervisory power, the court found the authority&#039;s decision well-founded, citing precedents on objective valuation criteria. The court ruled the petitions lacked merit, as the separate land/building valuation issue was not raised earlier. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed without interference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:01:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55037" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (3) TMI 55 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16037</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the Income-tax Department&#039;s pre-emptive purchase order for property valuation. The court upheld the authority&#039;s valuation methodology based on comparisons with higher-priced properties in Bangalore, rejecting petitioners&#039; arguments of undervaluation due to location disadvantages. Emphasizing limited supervisory power, the court found the authority&#039;s decision well-founded, citing precedents on objective valuation criteria. The court ruled the petitions lacked merit, as the separate land/building valuation issue was not raised earlier. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed without interference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16037</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>