<?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 (2) TMI 64 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18264</link>
    <description>Unquoted equity shares under the Gift-tax Act were to be valued by reference to the open-market value on the relevant sale date, using Rule 1D&#039;s mandatory break-up method. The balance-sheet nearest the valuation date, together with profits up to that date, could be taken into account, and the Tribunal&#039;s rejection of alleged undervaluation was upheld. A further 30 per cent discount was also sustained because the shares belonged to private companies with transfer restrictions and prolonged non-declaration of dividends, both of which depressed market value. The differential amounts were therefore not treated as deemed gifts.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 17:24:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=57264" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (2) TMI 64 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18264</link>
      <description>Unquoted equity shares under the Gift-tax Act were to be valued by reference to the open-market value on the relevant sale date, using Rule 1D&#039;s mandatory break-up method. The balance-sheet nearest the valuation date, together with profits up to that date, could be taken into account, and the Tribunal&#039;s rejection of alleged undervaluation was upheld. A further 30 per cent discount was also sustained because the shares belonged to private companies with transfer restrictions and prolonged non-declaration of dividends, both of which depressed market value. The differential amounts were therefore not treated as deemed gifts.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Feb 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=18264</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>