https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4517 The court upheld the interpretation of the exception in sub clause (1) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, affirming that the provision applies to various categories, including employees and officers. It agreed with the valuation method of the impugned premises under the second proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III, dismissing the challenge raised. The court did not address the applicability of interest under Section 17B as it was not in dispute. However, it remanded the matter back to the tribunal to determine if the appellant's case falls under exception (3) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) and emphasized considering consequential relief if ruled in favor of the appellant. en-us Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4517 The court upheld the interpretation of the exception in sub clause (1) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, affirming that the provision applies to various categories, including employees and officers. It agreed with the valuation method of the impugned premises under the second proviso to Rule 3 of Schedule III, dismissing the challenge raised. The court did not address the applicability of interest under Section 17B as it was not in dispute. However, it remanded the matter back to the tribunal to determine if the appellant's case falls under exception (3) of clause (i) of Section 2(ea) and emphasized considering consequential relief if ruled in favor of the appellant. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4517