<?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>1990 (10) TMI 153 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69548</link>
    <description>The Tribunal upheld the tax assessment on the portion of the property used by the Managing Director of a private limited company, ruling that the Managing Director could not be considered an employee for wealth-tax purposes. The Tribunal found that the Managing Director&#039;s salary from another source exceeded the limit specified in the relevant section, leading to the conclusion that he did not meet the conditions for exemption. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the exclusion provisions for low-paid employees&#039; residential accommodation did not apply as they required accommodation for multiple employees, not just the Managing Director. The company&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 07 Apr 2011 15:42:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=107909" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (10) TMI 153 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69548</link>
      <description>The Tribunal upheld the tax assessment on the portion of the property used by the Managing Director of a private limited company, ruling that the Managing Director could not be considered an employee for wealth-tax purposes. The Tribunal found that the Managing Director&#039;s salary from another source exceeded the limit specified in the relevant section, leading to the conclusion that he did not meet the conditions for exemption. Additionally, the Tribunal determined that the exclusion provisions for low-paid employees&#039; residential accommodation did not apply as they required accommodation for multiple employees, not just the Managing Director. The company&#039;s appeal was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Oct 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69548</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>