<?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>1989 (10) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23481</link>
    <description>A reference on a low-tax-effect question was declined because the issue was already pending in other matters and the governing principles would apply across similar assessments. A reference on the second question was directed because the Tribunal had not examined whether the firm was an industrial undertaking and whether the assessee&#039;s interest qualified for exemption under the Wealth-tax Act. The application therefore succeeded only in part, with reference ordered only on the exemption-related question.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:38:40 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=62479" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1989 (10) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23481</link>
      <description>A reference on a low-tax-effect question was declined because the issue was already pending in other matters and the governing principles would apply across similar assessments. A reference on the second question was directed because the Tribunal had not examined whether the firm was an industrial undertaking and whether the assessee&#039;s interest qualified for exemption under the Wealth-tax Act. The application therefore succeeded only in part, with reference ordered only on the exemption-related question.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Oct 1989 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23481</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>