<?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 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61386</link>
    <description>Where reliable comparable market evidence exists, agricultural land is not to be valued by yield capitalisation, though a modest addition may be justified for uncultivated land still having residual value despite adverse possession. A gift deed naming an individual donee is not converted into a gift to the HUF merely by standard heirship language, and the addition was deleted. For long-standing tenancies, rent capitalisation is the proper basis for valuing tenanted property, and rule 1BB is mandatory for residential house valuation; the appellate valuations were upheld. The sum of Rs. 61,440 was treated as not includible in the assessee&#039;s hands, as the larger HUF was not shown to have ceased by a recognised partition.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:34:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=99833" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 144 - ITAT CHANDIGARH</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61386</link>
      <description>Where reliable comparable market evidence exists, agricultural land is not to be valued by yield capitalisation, though a modest addition may be justified for uncultivated land still having residual value despite adverse possession. A gift deed naming an individual donee is not converted into a gift to the HUF merely by standard heirship language, and the addition was deleted. For long-standing tenancies, rent capitalisation is the proper basis for valuing tenanted property, and rule 1BB is mandatory for residential house valuation; the appellate valuations were upheld. The sum of Rs. 61,440 was treated as not includible in the assessee&#039;s hands, as the larger HUF was not shown to have ceased by a recognised partition.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=61386</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>