<?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>1978 (9) TMI 94 - ITAT JABALPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67298</link>
    <description>The Wealth-tax Act was read as conferring a wider appellate right where the assessee objects to the amount of net wealth determined, because section 23A uses that wording instead of requiring the assessee to be &quot;aggrieved&quot;. Section 23(1) permits an appeal from an order of the Wealth-tax Officer, and the Act contains no express exclusion comparable to the Income-tax Act provision barring appeals from certain summary assessments. On that construction, an appeal against an assessment under section 16(1) was maintainable, including where no exemption had been granted, and the contrary view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was incorrect.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 10 Mar 2011 09:55:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=105733" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1978 (9) TMI 94 - ITAT JABALPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67298</link>
      <description>The Wealth-tax Act was read as conferring a wider appellate right where the assessee objects to the amount of net wealth determined, because section 23A uses that wording instead of requiring the assessee to be &quot;aggrieved&quot;. Section 23(1) permits an appeal from an order of the Wealth-tax Officer, and the Act contains no express exclusion comparable to the Income-tax Act provision barring appeals from certain summary assessments. On that construction, an appeal against an assessment under section 16(1) was maintainable, including where no exemption had been granted, and the contrary view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was incorrect.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 04 Sep 1978 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=67298</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>