<?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>1981 (2) TMI 128 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66161</link>
    <description>A fresh fixed deposit made from the maturity proceeds of an earlier firm deposit qualified for exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act because bank deposits are exempt assets and the ceiling in section 5(1A) does not alter that character. In construing the Explanation to section 5(3), the partnership property was treated as jointly owned by the partners, so the assessee could count the period during which the firm held the earlier exempt deposit. As the new deposit was placed immediately on maturity from the earlier proceeds, the holding period satisfied the six-month requirement, and the addition of the deposit to net wealth was not sustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:23:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=104596" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1981 (2) TMI 128 - ITAT HYDERABAD-A</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66161</link>
      <description>A fresh fixed deposit made from the maturity proceeds of an earlier firm deposit qualified for exemption under section 5(1)(xxvi) of the Wealth-tax Act because bank deposits are exempt assets and the ceiling in section 5(1A) does not alter that character. In construing the Explanation to section 5(3), the partnership property was treated as jointly owned by the partners, so the assessee could count the period during which the firm held the earlier exempt deposit. As the new deposit was placed immediately on maturity from the earlier proceeds, the holding period satisfied the six-month requirement, and the addition of the deposit to net wealth was not sustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Sun, 08 Feb 1981 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66161</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>