<?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>2009 (2) TMI 115 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT-JAIPUR</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33763</link>
    <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that a hotel does not qualify as a &quot;house&quot; for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court emphasized that the term &quot;house&quot; generally refers to a dwelling place and does not include commercial buildings like hotels. The decision was based on legal interpretations and precedents, rejecting the contention that a hotel could be considered a house for exemption purposes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=72392" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (2) TMI 115 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT-JAIPUR</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33763</link>
      <description>The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, holding that a hotel does not qualify as a &quot;house&quot; for exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act. The court emphasized that the term &quot;house&quot; generally refers to a dwelling place and does not include commercial buildings like hotels. The decision was based on legal interpretations and precedents, rejecting the contention that a hotel could be considered a house for exemption purposes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=33763</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>