<?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>2012 (3) TMI 638 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281999</link>
    <description>For wealth-tax purposes, includibility depends on the asset&#039;s actual legal and factual character on the valuation date, not on hypothetical or commercial assumptions. Industrial land at Raniwala Oil Mills was not treated as urban land because conversion for commercial use had not been granted and valuation on commercial rates was unsustainable. Krishna Mills, the Rishikesh land, and the Alwar properties were likewise excluded where the land was agricultural, under disputed ownership, covered by house-property treatment, or incapable of permitted construction. The Tribunal therefore upheld deletion of the additions and affirmed the assessee&#039;s position on all disputed items.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 17 Jul 2019 11:53:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=579687" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (3) TMI 638 - ITAT JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281999</link>
      <description>For wealth-tax purposes, includibility depends on the asset&#039;s actual legal and factual character on the valuation date, not on hypothetical or commercial assumptions. Industrial land at Raniwala Oil Mills was not treated as urban land because conversion for commercial use had not been granted and valuation on commercial rates was unsustainable. Krishna Mills, the Rishikesh land, and the Alwar properties were likewise excluded where the land was agricultural, under disputed ownership, covered by house-property treatment, or incapable of permitted construction. The Tribunal therefore upheld deletion of the additions and affirmed the assessee&#039;s position on all disputed items.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 07 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=281999</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>