<?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>1991 (6) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22080</link>
    <description>The court held that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules is not mandatory but directory. The Wealth-tax Officer is not obligated to apply it in all cases of valuing unquoted equity shares in a private limited company. The court answered the questions as follows: Question 1 against the assessee, Questions 2 and 3 in favor of the Revenue, and Question 4 did not require a specific answer.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 05 Dec 2009 18:40:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61079" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 44 - KARNATAKA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22080</link>
      <description>The court held that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules is not mandatory but directory. The Wealth-tax Officer is not obligated to apply it in all cases of valuing unquoted equity shares in a private limited company. The court answered the questions as follows: Question 1 against the assessee, Questions 2 and 3 in favor of the Revenue, and Question 4 did not require a specific answer.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 03 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22080</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>