<?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>1997 (10) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17084</link>
    <description>Gifted cumulative redeemable preference shares of a private company were required to be valued under the statutory scheme in the Gift-tax Act and Rules. Section 6(1) adopts open-market value, while Section 6(3) applies where that value cannot be estimated because the property is not saleable in the open market, in which case the prescribed method must be used. Rule 10 governs valuation of shares in a private company with restrictive transfer provisions and directs valuation by reference to company assets, with the rule-based method prevailing over a yield-only approach. The valuation therefore had to follow Rule 10, and the yield method alone was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:19:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1997 (10) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17084</link>
      <description>Gifted cumulative redeemable preference shares of a private company were required to be valued under the statutory scheme in the Gift-tax Act and Rules. Section 6(1) adopts open-market value, while Section 6(3) applies where that value cannot be estimated because the property is not saleable in the open market, in which case the prescribed method must be used. Rule 10 governs valuation of shares in a private company with restrictive transfer provisions and directs valuation by reference to company assets, with the rule-based method prevailing over a yield-only approach. The valuation therefore had to follow Rule 10, and the yield method alone was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Oct 1997 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17084</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>