<?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>1985 (6) TMI 45 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58349</link>
    <description>The appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objections were allowed. The Tribunal directed that the property be valued using the rent capitalization method, considering the property was subject to Rent Control restrictions and the dual capacity of the assessee as landlord and executor. The Tribunal emphasized the need for expert valuation and adherence to statutory provisions for property valuation.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 Dec 2010 15:58:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96807" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1985 (6) TMI 45 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58349</link>
      <description>The appeals were dismissed, and the cross-objections were allowed. The Tribunal directed that the property be valued using the rent capitalization method, considering the property was subject to Rent Control restrictions and the dual capacity of the assessee as landlord and executor. The Tribunal emphasized the need for expert valuation and adherence to statutory provisions for property valuation.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 19 Jun 1985 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58349</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>