<?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>1998 (6) TMI 62 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16306</link>
    <description>For valuation under section 6(1) of the Gift-tax Act, the relevant test was the price the gifted property would fetch in the open market on the date of the gift. Capitalisation of rent was an accepted valuation method, but the proper input was the rent actually realised from the property at that date unless shown to be collusive or understated. Because the property had been in tenancy since 1965 and no material showed the settled rent was not the true market rent, later rent from another portion of the building and rent agreed after the gift were irrelevant. The Tribunal&#039;s valuation was upheld, and the issue was decided for the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Sep 2009 18:01:17 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55306" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (6) TMI 62 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16306</link>
      <description>For valuation under section 6(1) of the Gift-tax Act, the relevant test was the price the gifted property would fetch in the open market on the date of the gift. Capitalisation of rent was an accepted valuation method, but the proper input was the rent actually realised from the property at that date unless shown to be collusive or understated. Because the property had been in tenancy since 1965 and no material showed the settled rent was not the true market rent, later rent from another portion of the building and rent agreed after the gift were irrelevant. The Tribunal&#039;s valuation was upheld, and the issue was decided for the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 02 Jun 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16306</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>