<?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>1984 (1) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58479</link>
    <description>Exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act was stated to extend to office premises used for commercial purposes, where the CBDT circular clarified that such property remained within the exemption. The commentary notes that the circular was binding on departmental authorities and that the Wealth-tax Officer had overlooked it. On that basis, the value of the office premises was to be excluded from the wealth computation, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was unsuccessful.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Dec 2010 11:52:55 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=96937" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1984 (1) TMI 94 - ITAT BOMBAY-B</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58479</link>
      <description>Exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act was stated to extend to office premises used for commercial purposes, where the CBDT circular clarified that such property remained within the exemption. The commentary notes that the circular was binding on departmental authorities and that the Wealth-tax Officer had overlooked it. On that basis, the value of the office premises was to be excluded from the wealth computation, and the Revenue&#039;s challenge was unsuccessful.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 1984 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58479</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>