<?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>1969 (2) TMI 189 - CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285500</link>
    <description>For income-tax purposes, trading profits were assessed under an accounting approach in which closing stock could be valued at the lower of cost or market value, but the phrase &quot;market value&quot; was not given a restricted meaning for retailers. The Court held that market value ordinarily means the price obtainable in the market offering the best price, and modern accounting opinion did not justify treating replacement or wholesale value as the relevant measure where retail market value was the proper market value. The taxpayers were therefore not entitled to adopt replacement or wholesale value for unsold closing stock, and the Revenue&#039;s valuation basis was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:56:39 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=600396" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1969 (2) TMI 189 - CHANCERY DIVISION</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285500</link>
      <description>For income-tax purposes, trading profits were assessed under an accounting approach in which closing stock could be valued at the lower of cost or market value, but the phrase &quot;market value&quot; was not given a restricted meaning for retailers. The Court held that market value ordinarily means the price obtainable in the market offering the best price, and modern accounting opinion did not justify treating replacement or wholesale value as the relevant measure where retail market value was the proper market value. The taxpayers were therefore not entitled to adopt replacement or wholesale value for unsold closing stock, and the Revenue&#039;s valuation basis was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Feb 1969 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285500</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>