<?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>1987 (3) TMI 39 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25390</link>
    <description>The court determined that gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones were not classified as &quot;jewellery&quot; under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for periods preceding April 1, 1972. Explanation I, which extended the definition to include such ornaments, was held to have prospective application from April 1, 1972. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling against retrospective application and entailing no costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 12:53:44 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64388" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (3) TMI 39 - BOMBAY High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25390</link>
      <description>The court determined that gold ornaments without precious or semi-precious stones were not classified as &quot;jewellery&quot; under Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for periods preceding April 1, 1972. Explanation I, which extended the definition to include such ornaments, was held to have prospective application from April 1, 1972. The judgment favored the assessee, ruling against retrospective application and entailing no costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Mar 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25390</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>