<?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>2011 (11) TMI 840 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287031</link>
    <description>Comparable-sale valuation of acquired land permitted deductions for development, roads, civic amenities, de-escalation and waiting period where the exemplar was a small developed site and the acquired tract was large undeveloped agricultural land. The 55 percent development deduction was within the permissible range, and the additional 10 percent de-escalation and 5 percent waiting-period deductions were supported by the time gap and settled escalation principles. The cumulative 70 percent deduction remained within the outer benchmark recognised in precedent, and uniformity with compensation fixed for similarly situated land justified the final rate of compensation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Mar 2020 15:36:08 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=608105" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (11) TMI 840 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287031</link>
      <description>Comparable-sale valuation of acquired land permitted deductions for development, roads, civic amenities, de-escalation and waiting period where the exemplar was a small developed site and the acquired tract was large undeveloped agricultural land. The 55 percent development deduction was within the permissible range, and the additional 10 percent de-escalation and 5 percent waiting-period deductions were supported by the time gap and settled escalation principles. The cumulative 70 percent deduction remained within the outer benchmark recognised in precedent, and uniformity with compensation fixed for similarly situated land justified the final rate of compensation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 22 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287031</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>