<?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 (1) TMI 131 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58779</link>
    <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming that the term &quot;house&quot; under the Wealth Tax Act should encompass the entire building with multiple residential units, rather than each unit separately. The tribunal emphasized the unity of structure in the building and referenced legal precedents to support this interpretation, leading to the sustenance of the original exemption allowed for the co-owned property.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:32:31 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=97235" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1987 (1) TMI 131 - ITAT BOMBAY-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58779</link>
      <description>The appellate tribunal dismissed the appeals, affirming that the term &quot;house&quot; under the Wealth Tax Act should encompass the entire building with multiple residential units, rather than each unit separately. The tribunal emphasized the unity of structure in the building and referenced legal precedents to support this interpretation, leading to the sustenance of the original exemption allowed for the co-owned property.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=58779</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>