https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35939 The court ruled in favor of the department, finding that the appellate orders had a mistake apparent on the record due to retrospective amendments to the Wealth-tax Act. The court emphasized the need to rectify orders inconsistent with amended provisions, citing precedents supporting rectification for completed assessments. It held that the expanded interpretation of "jewellery" applied retrospectively, leading to the erroneous assessment of wealth-tax on jewellery. Consequently, the court upheld the rectification sought by the revenue, underscoring the significance of considering retrospective amendments and legal interpretations in rectifying assessment orders. en-us Tue, 04 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:06:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35939 The court ruled in favor of the department, finding that the appellate orders had a mistake apparent on the record due to retrospective amendments to the Wealth-tax Act. The court emphasized the need to rectify orders inconsistent with amended provisions, citing precedents supporting rectification for completed assessments. It held that the expanded interpretation of "jewellery" applied retrospectively, leading to the erroneous assessment of wealth-tax on jewellery. Consequently, the court upheld the rectification sought by the revenue, underscoring the significance of considering retrospective amendments and legal interpretations in rectifying assessment orders. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 04 Dec 1979 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35939