<?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 (11) TMI 122 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65169</link>
    <description>The Tribunal ruled that the advance made for the purchase of a commercial flat did not constitute an asset under the Wealth Tax Act until possession was granted. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership is not established solely by possession without a conveyance deed, supporting this view with recent judicial precedents. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, affirming that the advance payment could not be considered an asset for wealth tax purposes without possession.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 14 Feb 2011 10:25:58 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=103609" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (11) TMI 122 - ITAT DELHI-E</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65169</link>
      <description>The Tribunal ruled that the advance made for the purchase of a commercial flat did not constitute an asset under the Wealth Tax Act until possession was granted. The Tribunal emphasized that ownership is not established solely by possession without a conveyance deed, supporting this view with recent judicial precedents. The Revenue&#039;s appeals were dismissed, affirming that the advance payment could not be considered an asset for wealth tax purposes without possession.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=65169</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>