https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10123 The court allowed the application for rectification, modifying the order to include the exception for investment companies under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The court clarified that the Division Bench's omission regarding the assessee's status as an investment company was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Department retains the right to challenge the assessee's classification as an investment company, subject to objections from the assessee. No costs were awarded, and certified copies of the judgment were promptly provided to the parties upon request. en-us Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10123 The court allowed the application for rectification, modifying the order to include the exception for investment companies under Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. The court clarified that the Division Bench's omission regarding the assessee's status as an investment company was a mistake apparent on the face of the record. The Department retains the right to challenge the assessee's classification as an investment company, subject to objections from the assessee. No costs were awarded, and certified copies of the judgment were promptly provided to the parties upon request. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Fri, 23 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10123