<?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 (2) TMI 13 - KERALA High Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25395</link>
    <description>The court upheld the validity of the rectification order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and denied the assessee&#039;s claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision setting aside the rectification order was overturned, with the Tribunal affirming the assessing authority&#039;s decision. The court emphasized the correctness of including the omitted sum in the total wealth and upheld the refusal to grant exemption beyond the specified limit, in line with the correct interpretation of the law. The judgment favored the Revenue, with each party bearing their respective costs.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 13:11:56 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=64393" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (2) TMI 13 - KERALA High Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25395</link>
      <description>The court upheld the validity of the rectification order passed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and denied the assessee&#039;s claim for exemption under section 5(1)(xvi) of the Act. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner&#039;s decision setting aside the rectification order was overturned, with the Tribunal affirming the assessing authority&#039;s decision. The court emphasized the correctness of including the omitted sum in the total wealth and upheld the refusal to grant exemption beyond the specified limit, in line with the correct interpretation of the law. The judgment favored the Revenue, with each party bearing their respective costs.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Feb 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=25395</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>