<?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>2016 (7) TMI 422 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329824</link>
    <description>The Tribunal held that the land held by the assessee was not liable for Wealth Tax as it did not qualify as urban land under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act due to a court injunction prohibiting construction. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the land from the definition of assets for Wealth Tax purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 09 Jul 2016 12:25:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=434501" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (7) TMI 422 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329824</link>
      <description>The Tribunal held that the land held by the assessee was not liable for Wealth Tax as it did not qualify as urban land under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act due to a court injunction prohibiting construction. The Tribunal allowed the assessee&#039;s appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the land from the definition of assets for Wealth Tax purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Jun 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=329824</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>