<?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 (8) TMI 219 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69863</link>
    <description>Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules was treated as applicable to the valuation of a company&#039;s property when wealth-tax was revived for closely-held companies under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The valuation framework under Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act continued to govern, and the exclusion in Section 40(5) did not remove Section 7(1) or the rules made under it. Rule 1BB was described as a beneficial and uniform valuation method, applicable even where valuation was referred to the Valuation Officer. A discretionary direction to appeal under Section 24(2) had to be exercised fairly and without discrimination; on the facts stated, the appeal was considered untenable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:51:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108223" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (8) TMI 219 - ITAT MADRAS-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69863</link>
      <description>Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules was treated as applicable to the valuation of a company&#039;s property when wealth-tax was revived for closely-held companies under Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The valuation framework under Section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act continued to govern, and the exclusion in Section 40(5) did not remove Section 7(1) or the rules made under it. Rule 1BB was described as a beneficial and uniform valuation method, applicable even where valuation was referred to the Valuation Officer. A discretionary direction to appeal under Section 24(2) had to be exercised fairly and without discrimination; on the facts stated, the appeal was considered untenable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 30 Aug 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=69863</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>