<?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>2000 (7) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15029</link>
    <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, affirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to pass an order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not challenged before a higher forum, thus allowing the Commissioner to enhance the value of the property. The reference was disposed of in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the doctrine of merger is not applicable when an issue is not subject to challenge before a higher forum.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 16:56:09 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54029" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (7) TMI 65 - DELHI High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15029</link>
      <description>The High Court ruled against the assessee, affirming the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to pass an order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Court held that the doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not challenged before a higher forum, thus allowing the Commissioner to enhance the value of the property. The reference was disposed of in favor of the Revenue, emphasizing that the doctrine of merger is not applicable when an issue is not subject to challenge before a higher forum.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jul 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15029</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>