https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59224 The judgment focused on the valuation of a co-owned residential flat for wealth tax purposes, interpreting the provisos to Rule 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. It clarified that exclusive residential use, not ownership, is key to benefiting from the third proviso. Ownership was not deemed necessary, emphasizing continuous residential use for entitlement. The ruling favored the assessee, rejecting technical denials of benefits and addressing interest levying under section 17B as a consequential matter. en-us Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Dec 2010 12:53:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59224 The judgment focused on the valuation of a co-owned residential flat for wealth tax purposes, interpreting the provisos to Rule 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. It clarified that exclusive residential use, not ownership, is key to benefiting from the third proviso. Ownership was not deemed necessary, emphasizing continuous residential use for entitlement. The ruling favored the assessee, rejecting technical denials of benefits and addressing interest levying under section 17B as a consequential matter. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 13 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=59224