<?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>2011 (6) TMI 843 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181469</link>
    <description>The dispute concerned whether warehouses used in the assessee&#039;s warehousing business fell within &quot;assets&quot; under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. As the related income-tax proceedings on the nature of warehousing receipts were already under reconsideration, the wealth-tax controversy was not finally decided on merits. By consent, the appellate order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:32:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=424229" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (6) TMI 843 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181469</link>
      <description>The dispute concerned whether warehouses used in the assessee&#039;s warehousing business fell within &quot;assets&quot; under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. As the related income-tax proceedings on the nature of warehousing receipts were already under reconsideration, the wealth-tax controversy was not finally decided on merits. By consent, the appellate order was quashed and the matter was remitted for fresh consideration in accordance with law.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181469</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>