<?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 (6) TMI 21 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22634</link>
    <description>Where beneficiaries had already been assessed on their respective interests, the Wealth-tax Officer could not separately assess the trust property. The Bombay HC noted that the issue was governed by binding precedent of the same court, stated to have been approved by the Supreme Court, and on that basis answered the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:12:12 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=61633" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (6) TMI 21 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22634</link>
      <description>Where beneficiaries had already been assessed on their respective interests, the Wealth-tax Officer could not separately assess the trust property. The Bombay HC noted that the issue was governed by binding precedent of the same court, stated to have been approved by the Supreme Court, and on that basis answered the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 15 Jun 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22634</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>