<?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 (2) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15146</link>
    <description>Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, introduced from 1 April 1989, was treated as a procedural valuation method and applied to pending assessment proceedings for earlier years. Because it was procedural rather than substantive, it governed assessments for 1985-86 to 1988-89, and rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules did not bar its application. The Tribunal was therefore correct in holding that the reference question need not be made under section 27(1).</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:09:47 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54146" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2000 (2) TMI 80 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15146</link>
      <description>Schedule III of the Wealth-tax Act, introduced from 1 April 1989, was treated as a procedural valuation method and applied to pending assessment proceedings for earlier years. Because it was procedural rather than substantive, it governed assessments for 1985-86 to 1988-89, and rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules did not bar its application. The Tribunal was therefore correct in holding that the reference question need not be made under section 27(1).</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2000 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15146</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>