https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66456 Rectification under section 35 was held permissible because failure to apply the relevant wealth-tax computation rule in the original assessments was a mistake apparent from the record. For urban assets, only debts incurred for acquiring, improving, constructing, repairing, renewing or reconstructing those assets could be deducted directly; other liabilities could be set off only after exhausting the gross value of movable assets and other non-urban assets. As the assessee's liabilities were not shown to relate to the urban assets and did not exceed the value of the movable assets, no further deduction against the urban assets was allowed. The rectification orders were therefore upheld and the additional wealth-tax levy sustained. en-us Fri, 27 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Feb 2011 17:53:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66456 Rectification under section 35 was held permissible because failure to apply the relevant wealth-tax computation rule in the original assessments was a mistake apparent from the record. For urban assets, only debts incurred for acquiring, improving, constructing, repairing, renewing or reconstructing those assets could be deducted directly; other liabilities could be set off only after exhausting the gross value of movable assets and other non-urban assets. As the assessee's liabilities were not shown to relate to the urban assets and did not exceed the value of the movable assets, no further deduction against the urban assets was allowed. The rectification orders were therefore upheld and the additional wealth-tax levy sustained. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Fri, 27 Jul 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=66456