<?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>2017 (11) TMI 2053 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313403</link>
    <description>The SC allowed the appeals, remanding the case to the HC for fresh consideration, emphasizing that circle rates should not determine market value. The Reference Court&#039;s judgments were annulled, requiring additional evidence and fresh orders. The private respondents retained the decretal amount, providing security and an undertaking to repay with interest if necessary. The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court, and pending applications were disposed of.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2024 13:32:25 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=749760" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (11) TMI 2053 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313403</link>
      <description>The SC allowed the appeals, remanding the case to the HC for fresh consideration, emphasizing that circle rates should not determine market value. The Reference Court&#039;s judgments were annulled, requiring additional evidence and fresh orders. The private respondents retained the decretal amount, providing security and an undertaking to repay with interest if necessary. The parties were directed to appear before the Reference Court, and pending applications were disposed of.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Nov 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313403</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>