<?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>2012 (8) TMI 595 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215912</link>
    <description>The third proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 was construed to require that a house be retained exclusively for the assessee&#039;s own residential purpose and not let out or used for non-residential purposes. Actual physical occupation throughout the relevant period was held not indispensable, so long as the property remained earmarked for residential use. On that construction, the residential house qualified for the proviso and the valuation adopted on a contrary basis was unsustainable.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 06:27:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=189296" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (8) TMI 595 - ITAT MUMBAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215912</link>
      <description>The third proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 was construed to require that a house be retained exclusively for the assessee&#039;s own residential purpose and not let out or used for non-residential purposes. Actual physical occupation throughout the relevant period was held not indispensable, so long as the property remained earmarked for residential use. On that construction, the residential house qualified for the proviso and the valuation adopted on a contrary basis was unsustainable.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=215912</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>