<?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>1990 (1) TMI 29 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23357</link>
    <description>The Tribunal&#039;s valuation of the assessee&#039;s share in the property was treated as a question of fact, and it relied on the value accepted in the case of the other co-owners. No material showed that the Tribunal had adopted a different figure or that any basis existed to interfere with the factual finding. The challenge to the valuation therefore failed, and the Tribunal&#039;s assessment was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:50:41 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62356" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 29 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23357</link>
      <description>The Tribunal&#039;s valuation of the assessee&#039;s share in the property was treated as a question of fact, and it relied on the value accepted in the case of the other co-owners. No material showed that the Tribunal had adopted a different figure or that any basis existed to interfere with the factual finding. The challenge to the valuation therefore failed, and the Tribunal&#039;s assessment was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23357</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>