<?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>1992 (4) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21047</link>
    <description>For shares in a private company that is a going concern, valuation is ordinarily to be made on the yield basis rather than the break-up basis. The Wealth-tax Officer had applied rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 and adopted break-up valuation, but the Court followed the settled position that the going-concern character of the company calls for yield method valuation. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding the yield method to be the proper basis for valuing the shares.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:25:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60046" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1992 (4) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21047</link>
      <description>For shares in a private company that is a going concern, valuation is ordinarily to be made on the yield basis rather than the break-up basis. The Wealth-tax Officer had applied rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 and adopted break-up valuation, but the Court followed the settled position that the going-concern character of the company calls for yield method valuation. The reference was answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, holding the yield method to be the proper basis for valuing the shares.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 28 Apr 1992 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21047</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>