TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ange in nature of property. Obviously till the old buildings are demolished or any new buildings came up on the land, Assessee was continuing to use the building and the land for the purposes of office/business purposes. Therefore, considering 20% of the proposed conversion of land use cannot be taken as an asset under the definition of 'asset' in the Wealth Tax Act. Since the property is being used for Assessee's business, it is certainly exempt from Wealth Tax - agricultural land being used for Assessee's business operations cannot be brought to tax as only unused urban land can be brought to tax for the Wealth Tax purposes as per the Explanation (1)(b) of section 2(ea) of the WT Act - Decided against Revenue. - WTA Nos. 1,2,3&4/Hyd/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 's land of 29,015.77 sq.mts. at Sanky Tank, Bangalore. Assessee admittedly is in the possession of this land, on which, it has 18 buildings, which have been utilized by Assessee for its offices for many years. In fact, as per submissions, there were research units, R D Office, stores, laboratories, security building, etc. and also office buildings let out to M/s Mansantho, the income of which was offered as house property. In the year 1998, since urbanization is growing around the place, Assessee sought permission from Government of Karnataka for conversion of land from small scale industrial use to 20% residential and 80% commercial use. Assessee subsequently entered into Memorandum of Agreement dt. 14-03-2002 with M/s Udhyaman Investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) accepted that properties which are let out and offered as such under the head 'income from house property' cannot be brought to tax and accordingly deleted some of the properties. With reference to the DDA building at New Delhi, out of two portions, one portion is on rent while other one is vacant. The CIT(A), therefore, considered to bring 50% of this building to tax. With reference to two flats at Brindavan Society at Mumbai, Mukund Construction Company and flat at Dhanbad also brought to wealth tax on the reason that Assessee failed to provide any evidence to establish that the said flats were used for own office accommodation. He confirmed the action of the AO on this issue. 7. After considering rival contentions and examining th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r they are let out the incomes were offered. The details of all the flats, which are considered by the AO, in fact, are extracted by the CIT(A) in para 8.1 of his order. As can been seen from the submissions, the DDA properties valued at Rs. 25,27,000/- (Rs. 25,47,000/-) is a three storied office building bearing No. B-5/23, which is being used for the office purposes and a portion of the building was let out on a yearly rent of Rs. 19,14,000/- to Indusland Media Communications Ltd. for commercial purposes. How 50% of this building, which is used by Assessee for its own purposes can be brought to tax was not explained by Revenue authorities. Similarly, two flats at Brindavan Society at Mumbai were used for office accommodation and two resid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-03, we hold that this property cannot be considered for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act. Along with this, the other ground raised is with reference to inclusion of values of various flats aggregating to Rs. 76,79,250/-. This issue is already covered in AY 2002-03 and for the reasons stated therein, these grounds are allowed. 10. The new ground in this year is with reference to valuation of property at Yelhanka Road, Bangalore. Assessee is having agricultural land of 39.27 acres in Venkatala Village falling within Yelahanka Municipality limits. Even though Assessee was doing floriculture in this land and income on this being exempt, the AO brought the amount to tax as urban land. It was the contention of Assessee that the land is used for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t they are let out for non-residential purposes. 14. First of all, there is no merit in the grounds raised by Revenue as only 20% of the land, the so called converted land, was brought to Wealth Tax by the AO on the reason that the same was not used for commercial purposes and the balance 80% as per the approval also is only for commercial purposes. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has rightly rejected the enhancement request. Be that as it may, even 20% of the land, which was confirmed by the CIT(A) was not approved in Assessee's appeal. Therefore, on that reason also there is no merit as the entire asset is being used for Assessee's own business. Accordingly, the ground raised by Revenue on this issue is rejected. 15. The other ground raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
