<?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>1996 (7) TMI 174 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60091</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving the valuation of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) had enhanced the property value to Rs. 48 lakhs, but the Tribunal disagreed, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the initial valuation of Rs. 2,02,038 based on rule 3 of Schedule III. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s claim regarding the treatment of an advance received against the property sale as a liability until the sale is finalized. The Tribunal also found that the enhancement of total wealth without proper opportunity for the appellant was unjustified and directed valuation in accordance with rule 3.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Jan 2011 16:38:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=98540" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1996 (7) TMI 174 - ITAT CALCUTTA-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60091</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee in a case involving the valuation of immovable property under the Wealth-tax Act. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) had enhanced the property value to Rs. 48 lakhs, but the Tribunal disagreed, directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the initial valuation of Rs. 2,02,038 based on rule 3 of Schedule III. Additionally, the Tribunal upheld the assessee&#039;s claim regarding the treatment of an advance received against the property sale as a liability until the sale is finalized. The Tribunal also found that the enhancement of total wealth without proper opportunity for the appellant was unjustified and directed valuation in accordance with rule 3.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 11 Jul 1996 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60091</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>