<?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>1986 (1) TMI 48 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26517</link>
    <description>The valuation of an assessee&#039;s right to receive enhanced compensation for wealth-tax purposes was governed by the settled principle that the right itself is property and must be valued on the relevant valuation date, considering its special nature, marketability, and litigation risk. Applying that principle, the Tribunal was held to have correctly accepted the assessee&#039;s valuation based on the Collector&#039;s award, as no material justified a different figure. Because the legal position was already settled and no useful purpose would be served by a further reference on the same question, the applications under section 27(3) were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 05 Feb 2010 15:34:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1986 (1) TMI 48 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26517</link>
      <description>The valuation of an assessee&#039;s right to receive enhanced compensation for wealth-tax purposes was governed by the settled principle that the right itself is property and must be valued on the relevant valuation date, considering its special nature, marketability, and litigation risk. Applying that principle, the Tribunal was held to have correctly accepted the assessee&#039;s valuation based on the Collector&#039;s award, as no material justified a different figure. Because the legal position was already settled and no useful purpose would be served by a further reference on the same question, the applications under section 27(3) were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 22 Jan 1986 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26517</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>