NCLT: Suspended Directors Who are Prospective Resolution Applicants Cann’t Access Valuation Reports || Supreme Court Clarifies Test For Granting Bail to Accused Added at Trial under Section 319 CrPC || SC: Fresh Notification For Vijayawada ACB Police Station not Required After AP Bifurcation || SC: Studying in a Government Institute Does Not Create an Automatic Right to a Government Job || NCLT Mumbai: CIRP Claims Cannot Invoke the 12-Year Limitation Period For Enforcing Mortgage Rights || NCLAT: Misnaming Guarantor as 'Director' in SARFAESI Notice Doesn't Void Guarantee Invocation || Jharkhand HC: Mere Breach of Compromise Terms by an Accused Does Not Justify Bail Cancellation || Cal HC: Banks Cannot Freeze a Company's Accounts Solely Due To ROC Labeling a 'Management Dispute' || Rajasthan HC: Father’s Rape of His Daughter Transcends Ordinary Crime; Victim’s Testimony Suffices || Delhi HC: Judge Who Reserved Judgment Must Deliver Verdict Despite Transfer; Successor Can't Rehear

S.N. Wadiyar v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karnataka - (Supreme Court) (21 Sep 2015)

Supreme Court values excess land owned by Wadiyar royalty

MANU/SC/1044/2015

Direct Taxation

In a question on valuation of property for the purposes of wealth tax, the Supreme Court held that property, the overall area of which exceeded that allowed by the Ceiling Act, 1962, would not be valued at open market price. Vacant land that fell within the ambit of the Ceiling Act would be valued at Rs. 2 lakhs, the maximum allowable under the Act, while the remaining area would be valued at the open market price.

Relevant : Section 11 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 Act Ahmed G.H. Ariff v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax MANU/SC/0167/1969

Tags : CEILING VALUATION LAND WEALTH TAX

Share :