https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14200 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the cinema building owned by the assessee was not entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 for the years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87. The court emphasized that the subsequent amendment was not curative or declaratory, stating that the provision as it stood previously did not include cinema houses as business assets. The court disagreed with the view that the amendment was merely clarificatory and highlighted the importance of legislative intent in interpreting laws. en-us Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:33:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14200 The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that the cinema building owned by the assessee was not entitled to exemption from wealth-tax under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983 for the years 1984-85, 1985-86, and 1986-87. The court emphasized that the subsequent amendment was not curative or declaratory, stating that the provision as it stood previously did not include cinema houses as business assets. The court disagreed with the view that the amendment was merely clarificatory and highlighted the importance of legislative intent in interpreting laws. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 15 Dec 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14200