Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Wealth-tax + HC Wealth-tax - 2011 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (5) TMI 379 - HC - Wealth-taxUrban land - Value of land - Rs.847/- or Rs.2,77,64,000/-. right in land - assessee could use the land in issue and the buildings constructed thereon only for the purposes of a club. The permission that was granted was only qua the assessee. The permission of the Lieutenant Governor obviously could not have been one in rem since the applicant was the assessee. The provisions of section 19(1) (vi) of ULCRA as prevalent at the relevant point in time, make it clear that while, exemption from other provisions of ULCRA was available in respect of vacant land held by certain kinds of entities including a club, the exemption was not automatic. - Held that:- the Tribunal was right in holding that the permission was available only to the assessee. In other words there was no automatic transfer of the permission assuming the land in issue was transferred to another even if it was a club. - assessees rights in the land in issue had to be valued at Rs.847/- - Decided in favor of assessee. Surplus land - AO took the view that since the possession of the land in issue had not been taken (by the state government), the assessee continued to be its owner and hence, after calculating its value for the purpose of Wealth Tax, brought it to tax. - Held that:- The only reason the Tribunal had concluded that the land in issue was not amenable to tax was that with the passing of the notification under Section 10(3) of the ULCRA it ceased to be the assessees asset. That situation having been reversed, in our view the logical sequitur would be that Tribunals judgment on this aspect would have to be set aside. Accordingly, the question raised before us has to be answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.
|