<?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>1987 (10) TMI 82 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58669</link>
    <description>Wealth-tax valuation had to reflect statutory ceiling restrictions, tenancy and lease encumbrances, and other factors depressing market value, including cultivators, hutment dwellers and acquisition proceedings. Lands affected by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and section 10 notifications were valued with those burdens in mind, and the fair market value was reduced where appropriate. Leased or tenanted properties were to be valued by rent capitalisation at the applicable yield rate, without mechanically adding a separate reversionary value of land for the Juhu property. Later sale agreements and realised consideration were treated as relevant valuation aids, and rule 1BB was applied to built-up tenanted residential properties, resulting in partial relief and confirmation of some valuations.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 Dec 2010 14:16:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97125" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (10) TMI 82 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58669</link>
      <description>Wealth-tax valuation had to reflect statutory ceiling restrictions, tenancy and lease encumbrances, and other factors depressing market value, including cultivators, hutment dwellers and acquisition proceedings. Lands affected by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and section 10 notifications were valued with those burdens in mind, and the fair market value was reduced where appropriate. Leased or tenanted properties were to be valued by rent capitalisation at the applicable yield rate, without mechanically adding a separate reversionary value of land for the Juhu property. Later sale agreements and realised consideration were treated as relevant valuation aids, and rule 1BB was applied to built-up tenanted residential properties, resulting in partial relief and confirmation of some valuations.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58669</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>