<?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 (8) TMI 38 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17492</link>
    <description>Under the wealth-tax share-valuation circulars, unquoted equity shares had to be valued on the basis of liabilities disclosed in the relevant accounts as part of the break-up value method. Estate duty liability could be deducted for later years where it appeared in the directors&#039; report and profit and loss account, but not for the first year when it was not disclosed in any relevant account or report and notice of death alone was insufficient. The Court also held that the full estate duty finally determined could not be substituted into the valuation, and rejected any further deduction for notional tax on subsidiary profits because the circulars did not permit that additional allowance.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:55:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=56492" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (8) TMI 38 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17492</link>
      <description>Under the wealth-tax share-valuation circulars, unquoted equity shares had to be valued on the basis of liabilities disclosed in the relevant accounts as part of the break-up value method. Estate duty liability could be deducted for later years where it appeared in the directors&#039; report and profit and loss account, but not for the first year when it was not disclosed in any relevant account or report and notice of death alone was insufficient. The Court also held that the full estate duty finally determined could not be substituted into the valuation, and rejected any further deduction for notional tax on subsidiary profits because the circulars did not permit that additional allowance.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 14 Aug 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17492</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>