<?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>1999 (9) TMI 36 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15231</link>
    <description>Valuation rules under the Wealth-tax Act were treated as procedural, so the amended Schedule III method applied to pending assessments that had not attained finality. Because the assessment for 1984-85 was still in appeal, the property had to be valued under the amended valuation rule rather than the earlier method. The issue was therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Aug 2009 18:12:05 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=54231" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1999 (9) TMI 36 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15231</link>
      <description>Valuation rules under the Wealth-tax Act were treated as procedural, so the amended Schedule III method applied to pending assessments that had not attained finality. Because the assessment for 1984-85 was still in appeal, the property had to be valued under the amended valuation rule rather than the earlier method. The issue was therefore answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 1999 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=15231</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>