<?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>2001 (3) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302554</link>
    <description>Rent capitalisation is an approved method for valuing let out immovable property, and the Tribunal&#039;s use of that method was supported by factual findings that the gifted property was tenanted, the tenant had long possession, and occupation continued after the gift. On that basis, the High Court held that the dispute did not raise any question of law for reference. The reference was declined.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 04 Jun 2022 13:03:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=681084" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (3) TMI 1082 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302554</link>
      <description>Rent capitalisation is an approved method for valuing let out immovable property, and the Tribunal&#039;s use of that method was supported by factual findings that the gifted property was tenanted, the tenant had long possession, and occupation continued after the gift. On that basis, the High Court held that the dispute did not raise any question of law for reference. The reference was declined.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302554</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>