<?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>1994 (7) TMI 372 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284506</link>
    <description>Compensation for acquired land was assessed on the basis of genuine comparable sales proximate to the notification date, with appropriate adjustments for location, time and potentiality, and the flat rate valuation was upheld. The court found the relied-upon sale instances genuine, sufficiently proximate and reflective of similar commercial and residential potential along the highway, so a rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha was not disturbed. Capitalisation of income was rejected because the evidence of vegetable and fruit-tree income was too general and unreliable, and separate valuation of individual plots was unwarranted in the absence of proved material differences. The District Judge&#039;s award was affirmed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 22 Nov 2019 11:46:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=595069" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1994 (7) TMI 372 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284506</link>
      <description>Compensation for acquired land was assessed on the basis of genuine comparable sales proximate to the notification date, with appropriate adjustments for location, time and potentiality, and the flat rate valuation was upheld. The court found the relied-upon sale instances genuine, sufficiently proximate and reflective of similar commercial and residential potential along the highway, so a rate of Rs. 15,000 per bigha was not disturbed. Capitalisation of income was rejected because the evidence of vegetable and fruit-tree income was too general and unreliable, and separate valuation of individual plots was unwarranted in the absence of proved material differences. The District Judge&#039;s award was affirmed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Jul 1994 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284506</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>