<?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>2005 (7) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9428</link>
    <description>A compulsory deposit standing to an assessee&#039;s credit was not excluded from net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act because the exclusion for an annuity under section 2(e)(2)(ii) applies only to a right not commutable into a lump sum, whereas this deposit was repayable in instalments and did not fit that description. The deposit was therefore an asset liable to inclusion in net wealth, with exemption available only to the extent specifically granted under section 5(1A).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:29:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48450" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 38 - ALLAHABAD High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9428</link>
      <description>A compulsory deposit standing to an assessee&#039;s credit was not excluded from net wealth under the Wealth-tax Act because the exclusion for an annuity under section 2(e)(2)(ii) applies only to a right not commutable into a lump sum, whereas this deposit was repayable in instalments and did not fit that description. The deposit was therefore an asset liable to inclusion in net wealth, with exemption available only to the extent specifically granted under section 5(1A).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9428</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>