<?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>1980 (9) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35775</link>
    <description>Gold Control restrictions on possession and sale did not eliminate market value for wealth-tax valuation where the statutory scheme still permitted lawful sale through prescribed channels, including to licensed dealers. The High Court held that regulated dealings in gold bullion did not mean the bullion lacked a prevailing market rate, and the published market price could still be used for assessment. It also held that additional material on the value of 24 carat gold was unnecessary because the limited enquiry concerned whether the rules restricted sale price, which they did not. The references were answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 15:48:34 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=74321" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1980 (9) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35775</link>
      <description>Gold Control restrictions on possession and sale did not eliminate market value for wealth-tax valuation where the statutory scheme still permitted lawful sale through prescribed channels, including to licensed dealers. The High Court held that regulated dealings in gold bullion did not mean the bullion lacked a prevailing market rate, and the published market price could still be used for assessment. It also held that additional material on the value of 24 carat gold was unnecessary because the limited enquiry concerned whether the rules restricted sale price, which they did not. The references were answered against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Sep 1980 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35775</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>