<?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>2006 (9) TMI 118 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9862</link>
    <description>Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 revives wealth-tax for closely held companies and taxes only the assets specified in sub-section (3), subject to the listed exclusions. Clause (vi) exempts only a building or part thereof used by the assessee as a factory, godown, warehouse, hotel, office, or specified welfare accommodation, and the provision was held to be plain and unambiguous without resort to external aids. A building does not escape wealth-tax merely because it is a commercial asset or let out in the course of the assessee&#039;s leasing business; it must still fit within the specific exclusion. The tenanted portion here did not fall within any excluded category and was therefore liable to wealth-tax.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:33:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=48884" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (9) TMI 118 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9862</link>
      <description>Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 revives wealth-tax for closely held companies and taxes only the assets specified in sub-section (3), subject to the listed exclusions. Clause (vi) exempts only a building or part thereof used by the assessee as a factory, godown, warehouse, hotel, office, or specified welfare accommodation, and the provision was held to be plain and unambiguous without resort to external aids. A building does not escape wealth-tax merely because it is a commercial asset or let out in the course of the assessee&#039;s leasing business; it must still fit within the specific exclusion. The tenanted portion here did not fall within any excluded category and was therefore liable to wealth-tax.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 11 Sep 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=9862</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>