<?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>1984 (5) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70109</link>
    <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-C ruled in a wealth-tax assessment case regarding the valuation of shares held by the assessee in various companies. The dispute centered on the inclusion of provisions for bad debts in determining the net worth of shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The Tribunal clarified that provisions for bad debts should not be included in the valuation of assets under rule 1D, emphasizing that liabilities referred to outstanding expenditures, not reductions in asset value. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s objections and upheld the order of the AAC, ultimately dismissing the appeal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 14 Apr 2011 14:04:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108462" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (5) TMI 129 - ITAT MADRAS-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70109</link>
      <description>The Appellate Tribunal ITAT MADRAS-C ruled in a wealth-tax assessment case regarding the valuation of shares held by the assessee in various companies. The dispute centered on the inclusion of provisions for bad debts in determining the net worth of shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The Tribunal clarified that provisions for bad debts should not be included in the valuation of assets under rule 1D, emphasizing that liabilities referred to outstanding expenditures, not reductions in asset value. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the department&#039;s objections and upheld the order of the AAC, ultimately dismissing the appeal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70109</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>