<?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>1985 (8) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26729</link>
    <description>For wealth-tax valuation under section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, the asset must be valued at the price it would fetch in the open market on the valuation date. The Court noted that whether restrictions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 reduce the market value of vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit raises a question of law, because the statutory scheme in sections 6, 8, 9 and 10 culminates in deemed acquisition only on a declaration under section 10(3), while section 11 becomes relevant thereafter. The Tribunal was therefore required to refer that legal question; the other proposed question was treated as factual and not fit for reference.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 11:58:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=65727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (8) TMI 59 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26729</link>
      <description>For wealth-tax valuation under section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, the asset must be valued at the price it would fetch in the open market on the valuation date. The Court noted that whether restrictions under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 reduce the market value of vacant land held in excess of the ceiling limit raises a question of law, because the statutory scheme in sections 6, 8, 9 and 10 culminates in deemed acquisition only on a declaration under section 10(3), while section 11 becomes relevant thereafter. The Tribunal was therefore required to refer that legal question; the other proposed question was treated as factual and not fit for reference.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 22 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26729</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>