<?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>2001 (7) TMI 26 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12767</link>
    <description>Exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act was unavailable because the assets in India were purchased with monies remitted by relatives, not from assets brought into India by the assessee on returning with the intention of permanently residing in India. The Tribunal also found that she was not ordinarily living abroad in the relevant sense and had not brought the assets into India herself. As the statutory conditions for exemption were not met, the claim failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 21 May 2009 18:24:04 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=51778" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2001 (7) TMI 26 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12767</link>
      <description>Exemption under section 5(1)(xxxiii) of the Wealth-tax Act was unavailable because the assets in India were purchased with monies remitted by relatives, not from assets brought into India by the assessee on returning with the intention of permanently residing in India. The Tribunal also found that she was not ordinarily living abroad in the relevant sense and had not brought the assets into India herself. As the statutory conditions for exemption were not met, the claim failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=12767</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>