<?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>1988 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24916</link>
    <description>In valuing gifted property under the open-market standard, the valuation must reflect the property&#039;s actual condition and marketability on the date of gift. A tenanted property cannot be treated as equivalent to vacant land or building because tenant occupation depresses market value. The choice of valuation method depends on the facts and available materials, and straight adoption of the capitalisation of rent method is not mandatory on every record. Where the land-and-building method is used, a reasonable allowance must still be made for tenant occupation; on the materials discussed, a 15% deduction was considered reasonable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 12:07:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=63914" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1988 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24916</link>
      <description>In valuing gifted property under the open-market standard, the valuation must reflect the property&#039;s actual condition and marketability on the date of gift. A tenanted property cannot be treated as equivalent to vacant land or building because tenant occupation depresses market value. The choice of valuation method depends on the facts and available materials, and straight adoption of the capitalisation of rent method is not mandatory on every record. Where the land-and-building method is used, a reasonable allowance must still be made for tenant occupation; on the materials discussed, a 15% deduction was considered reasonable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 1988 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=24916</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>