<?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>1983 (4) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28169</link>
    <description>A lease covenant requiring the lessee to pay the lessor 75% of the profit on sale of the plot operated as a restriction on the assessee&#039;s interest and reduced the asset&#039;s real value on the valuation date for wealth-tax purposes. That contingent profit-sharing obligation had to be deducted even though no sale occurred in the relevant year, because valuation had to reflect the net worth of the leasehold interest as held by the assessee. Applying the Supreme Court&#039;s principle on comparable profit-sharing covenants, the deductible amount was the lessor&#039;s share of the difference between purchase price and assumed sale price, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:52:18 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=67167" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1983 (4) TMI 28 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28169</link>
      <description>A lease covenant requiring the lessee to pay the lessor 75% of the profit on sale of the plot operated as a restriction on the assessee&#039;s interest and reduced the asset&#039;s real value on the valuation date for wealth-tax purposes. That contingent profit-sharing obligation had to be deducted even though no sale occurred in the relevant year, because valuation had to reflect the net worth of the leasehold interest as held by the assessee. Applying the Supreme Court&#039;s principle on comparable profit-sharing covenants, the deductible amount was the lessor&#039;s share of the difference between purchase price and assumed sale price, and the issue was answered in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 26 Apr 1983 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=28169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>