https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23705 A petition seeking reference on questions of law was dismissed as premature because the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The High Court held that the validity of the notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, the reassessment following reopening, the correct valuation of the tenanted property, and the application of section 23(3A), including whether the Departmental Valuation Officer should have been heard, all remained open for decision on remand. The assessee was left free to raise all contentions before the Assistant Commissioner, and the Court declined to decide the merits at that stage. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:04:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23705 A petition seeking reference on questions of law was dismissed as premature because the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The High Court held that the validity of the notice under section 17(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, the reassessment following reopening, the correct valuation of the tenanted property, and the application of section 23(3A), including whether the Departmental Valuation Officer should have been heard, all remained open for decision on remand. The assessee was left free to raise all contentions before the Assistant Commissioner, and the Court declined to decide the merits at that stage. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 02 Aug 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=23705