<?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>1996 (4) TMI 26 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17186</link>
    <description>A gratuity provision made on actuarial valuation is treated as a present and direct liability, not a mere contingent liability, for computing the break-up value of unquoted shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. On that basis, Explanation II(ii)(f) did not exclude deduction of the gratuity provision, and the amount was rightly deducted in arriving at share value. The referred question was answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:38:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56186" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (4) TMI 26 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17186</link>
      <description>A gratuity provision made on actuarial valuation is treated as a present and direct liability, not a mere contingent liability, for computing the break-up value of unquoted shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. On that basis, Explanation II(ii)(f) did not exclude deduction of the gratuity provision, and the amount was rightly deducted in arriving at share value. The referred question was answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Apr 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17186</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>