<?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>1998 (3) TMI 75 - MADRAS High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16135</link>
    <description>Reassessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act was unsustainable where the Wealth-tax Officer had already applied his mind to the valuation issue in the original assessment and the audit objection did not constitute fresh information. Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules was treated as retrospective and applicable to pending assessment proceedings, so the statutory formula for valuation governed the case. On the facts stated, these principles meant the reopening could not be justified and the reassessment failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:14:54 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=55135" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1998 (3) TMI 75 - MADRAS High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16135</link>
      <description>Reassessment under section 17(1)(b) of the Wealth-tax Act was unsustainable where the Wealth-tax Officer had already applied his mind to the valuation issue in the original assessment and the audit objection did not constitute fresh information. Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules was treated as retrospective and applicable to pending assessment proceedings, so the statutory formula for valuation governed the case. On the facts stated, these principles meant the reopening could not be justified and the reassessment failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 1998 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16135</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>