<?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>1991 (4) TMI 212 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70417</link>
    <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the reassessment of wealth tax due to valuation of goodwill in a partnership firm was unjustified as the firm had not purchased goodwill as of the relevant date. The reassessment was deemed invalid as per executive instructions and Rule 2C(b), highlighting the importance of adhering to legal provisions and guidelines in assessing tax liability related to goodwill in partnership firms.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 16 Apr 2011 10:28:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=108762" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (4) TMI 212 - ITAT MADRAS-D</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70417</link>
      <description>The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, ruling that the reassessment of wealth tax due to valuation of goodwill in a partnership firm was unjustified as the firm had not purchased goodwill as of the relevant date. The reassessment was deemed invalid as per executive instructions and Rule 2C(b), highlighting the importance of adhering to legal provisions and guidelines in assessing tax liability related to goodwill in partnership firms.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=70417</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>