1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court clarifies Wealth-tax Rule 1BB retroactive application</h1> The High Court of Allahabad held that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, applies procedurally to pending assessments from April 1, 1979. The judgment ... 'Whether the hon'ble Tribunal was correct in law in its finding that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, has not (sic) been made effective from April 1,1979, was to apply even in respect of pending assessments for orders prior to the assessment year 1979-80?' - held that rule 1BB of the Rules 1957, partakes of the character of a rule of evidence it deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognized and accepted methods. The rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on April 1,1979,when the rule came into force - In view of the above, the reference is answered in the affirmative against the Department in favour of the assessee. The High Court of Allahabad ruled that rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is procedural and applicable to pending assessments from April 1, 1979. The judgment favored the assessee against the Department.