https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335773 Section 10(19A) exempts one palace in the occupation of a Ruler, and the provision was read as covering the palace as a whole rather than permitting a split between self-occupied and let-out portions. The SC held that the statutory language does not support apportioning a palace into exempt and taxable parts, and that a different formulation in the Wealth Tax Act could not control this interpretation. As the exemption conditions were satisfied, rent from the portion let out was not separately taxable, and the full exemption for the palace could not be curtailed by tenancy. en-us Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 May 2026 10:36:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335773 Section 10(19A) exempts one palace in the occupation of a Ruler, and the provision was read as covering the palace as a whole rather than permitting a split between self-occupied and let-out portions. The SC held that the statutory language does not support apportioning a palace into exempt and taxable parts, and that a different formulation in the Wealth Tax Act could not control this interpretation. As the exemption conditions were satisfied, rent from the portion let out was not separately taxable, and the full exemption for the palace could not be curtailed by tenancy. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 05 Dec 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335773