Calcutta HC: Award May Be Set Aside if Tribunal Rewrites Contract or Ignores Key Clauses || Delhi HC Suspends Kuldeep Singh Sengar’s Life Term, Holding Section 5(C) of POCSO Not Made Out || Calcutta High Court: Arbitration Clause in an Expired Lease Cannot be Invoked For a Fresh Lease || Delhi High Court: 120-Day Timeline under Section 132B Of Income Tax Act is Not Mandatory || NCLAT Reaffirms That Borrower's Debt Acknowledgment Also Extends Limitation Period for Guarantors || NCLAT: Oppression & Mismanagement Petition Cannot Be Filed Without Company Membership on Filing Date || Supreme Court Quashes Rajasthan Village Renaming, Says Government Must Follow its Own Policy || NCLAT: NCLT Can Order Forensic Audit on its Own, No Separate Application Required || NCLAT Reiterates That IBC Cannot be Invoked as a Recovery Tool for Contractual Disputes || Delhi HC: DRI or Central Revenues Control Lab Presence in Delhi Alone Does Not Confer Jurisdiction

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 :