<?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>1981 (11) TMI 45 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29531</link>
    <description>The right to receive compensation under Section 72A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 was an asset for Wealth-tax Act purposes because it represented an ascertainable statutory sum payable after vesting of the landowner&#039;s interest in Government. Section 7(1) requires valuation by estimating the price the asset would fetch in a hypothetical open market on the valuation date, and the absence of an actual market does not make the asset valueless. Litigation over the legislation and the need for statutory determination or Government disbursement could affect quantum, but they did not justify a nil valuation. The right could not be treated as having no market value.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:52:35 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=68528" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (11) TMI 45 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29531</link>
      <description>The right to receive compensation under Section 72A of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 was an asset for Wealth-tax Act purposes because it represented an ascertainable statutory sum payable after vesting of the landowner&#039;s interest in Government. Section 7(1) requires valuation by estimating the price the asset would fetch in a hypothetical open market on the valuation date, and the absence of an actual market does not make the asset valueless. Litigation over the legislation and the need for statutory determination or Government disbursement could affect quantum, but they did not justify a nil valuation. The right could not be treated as having no market value.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=29531</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>