<?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>1990 (2) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21964</link>
    <description>The High Court dismissed the reference application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1975-76. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the interpretation of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, emphasizing the Department&#039;s burden to prove market value exceeding the balance-sheet value by over 20% before applying the rule. Additionally, the court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s ruling on the inapplicability of rule 2B(2) due to insufficient evidence beyond the gross profit rate. The assessee was granted exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) concerning investments in a specific firm. The judgment prioritized judicial efficiency and avoided redundant references on settled legal issues.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 11:20:45 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=60963" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (2) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21964</link>
      <description>The High Court dismissed the reference application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act for the assessment year 1975-76. The court upheld the Tribunal&#039;s decision regarding the interpretation of rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, emphasizing the Department&#039;s burden to prove market value exceeding the balance-sheet value by over 20% before applying the rule. Additionally, the court affirmed the Tribunal&#039;s ruling on the inapplicability of rule 2B(2) due to insufficient evidence beyond the gross profit rate. The assessee was granted exemption under section 5(1)(xxxii) concerning investments in a specific firm. The judgment prioritized judicial efficiency and avoided redundant references on settled legal issues.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 02 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=21964</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>