|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3607 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2019 (10) TMI 90
Wealth tax assessment - exclusion of land which is under litigation - HELD THAT:- When the compound wall construction had started, there is no reference in facts mentioned in the case (refer page 18). However, it is mentioned that even on 08.07.2007 and 09.07.2007, the construction work was disturbed by the defendants. Thereafter, the case was filed in F.Y 2007-08 relevant to A.Y 2008-09. But, before us, the AY pending for adjudication is A.Y 2006-07 and 2007-08. The dispute on title was started only in A.Y 2008-09. Therefore, it has no bearing on pending assessment years. Now the dispute is very much settled and in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of assessee is rejected. Even though assessee had title but could not enjoy the property due to dispute. The asset is recognised as asset only when it is enjoyed by the assessee for ....... + More
- 2019 (9) TMI 1102
Non filing of return of wealth under Wealth Tax Act - Penalty levied u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee did not file return of wealth under Wealth Tax Act voluntarily. The assessee did not dispute the service of notice u/s 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act before the AO at assessment proceedings or otherwise. Therefore it is a fit case of levy of penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. Therefore agree with the view of the Ld Accountant Member that penalty be imposed against the assessee. Dismiss all the appeals of the assessee. Let the files be put up before the regular bench for passing the consequential order.
- 2019 (9) TMI 416
Wealth tax assessment - asset to fall within the ambit of taxable asset - whether the land being “Khasra No. 335, Village Bandwahi, Gurgaon’ admeasuring 21.65 acres is a taxable asset for the purpose of wealth tax or not ? - HELD THAT:- Here in this case, the first exception that the land has been classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and is used for the agricultural purposes will not apply as assessee himself has contended that it was a non agricultural and uncultivable land being (Gair Mumkin Pahar). Now the only condition left which is required to be examined, whether any construction of a building is permissible under any law for the time being in force the area in which land is situated. If it is ascertained that construction of a building is permissible, then ostensibly it will be held as taxab....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1093
Wealth tax escapement - Notice issue u/s 17 of Wealth Tax Act - whether the impugned land is not liable for wealth-tax assessment - urban land as per Explanation 1 to section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - HELD THAT:- Wealth is leviable only on unproductive asset and not on commercial asset. This is clear from the provisions of Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Parliament has in its wisdom foreseen that for commencement of an industrial project, it would take minimum two years for securing permission and approval and hence, such land which is held as per the objects of the company for industrial purposes has to be exempted from the levy of wealth-tax for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition. The word “used” in the statute is land held for industrial purpose during the initial two years period. There is no requir....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1092
Wealth tax assessment - valuation of property - whether land in question was Sanad land and the assessee does not have absolute right over the land? - determination of net wealth on the basis of DVO report - whether land in question does not come under the definition of urban land? - HELD THAT:- The facts borne out from records clearly indicates that the land in question was acquired by the Government of Maharashtra through Collector, Thane, for the purpose of setting up Chemical Factory in the year 1957. The said land was converted into non-agricultural purpose in the year 1957, and as per, which the land in question has to be utilized for the purpose of setting up of chemical factory. The conditions, further stipulates that out of total area of land of 1,06,238 sq. yards, land to the extent of only 10,607 sq yards (approximately 10%) sh....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1091
Wealth tax assessment - asset as business asset and not liable for wealth tax - whether 4 6.102 cents of land at Palarivattom, Kochi is not chargeable to wealth tax on the ground that the same was used for parking of vehicles belonging to the employees of the assessee company and hence was a business asset? - admission of additional evidence - HELD THAT:- The affidavit filed by the assessee is a fresh document which was not made available with the lower authorities and it is required to be examined by the Assessing Officer so as to find out whether the impugned land has been used as parking space for the employees of the assessee-Company. It is the duty of the assessee to prove the impugned landed property is a business asset when the assessee claimed it is not liable for wealth tax. On the other hand, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessi....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 1013
Revision u/s 25 by Pr. CIT/CIT - condonation of delay - HELD THAT:- More importantly, writ petitioners have also paid the tax on wealth that has been overstated in the returns. As already been alluded to supra that respondent has even recorded in the impugned orders that the properties which have been erroneously included in the returns by the writ petitioners are clearly exempt u/s 2(ea)(i)(4). It is not completely forbidden to have a cursory look and have a birds eye view qua merits of the matter while testing whether delay in a given case deserves to be condoned. As this cannot be the sole determinant, this Court has considered the same as one of the buttressing features in search of an answer to the question as to whether delay is condonable / can be condoned in the instant cases. Section 25 of said Act is akin to Section 264. This Co....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 312
Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act - alleged that the assessee would have escaped from payment of wealth tax - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) proceeded to affirm the orders passed by the AO levying penalty by referring to the amendment to the Statute, which came into force with effect from 01.4.1997. To be noted that the assessments under consideration are for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and the assessee's specific case was that they were under the bona fide belief that the house property would not fall within the definition of the term 'asset' as defined u/s 2(ea)(i) of the Act. It is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the assessee did not file the return. In the first instance, notice was issued u/s 17(1) and only thereafter, the return was filed. This, according to the assessee, was because of their bona fide belief tha....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 5
Addition on account of cash in hand - treating the same as taxable wealth u/s 2(ea)(vi) - wealth tax appeal is against the finding of CIT(A) treating the cash in hand held by the assessee in his sole proprietorship concern M/s Kargil Bullion as a taxable asset liable for wealth tax - HELD THAT:- Both the lower authorities erred in including the business asset i.e. cash in hand as wealth of the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the alleged cash was part of regular cash in hand maintained by the assessee for the business purpose and due to the holiday on the last date of financial year and on the 1st & 2nd April of the subsequent financial year, the cash received by the assessee on account of sale of gold at Noida and Agra branch on 30.03.2007 & 31.03.2007 remained as cash in hand which was subsequently, deposited in pa....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 4
Wealth tax assessment - difference between the fixed assets as per the Balance sheet and the assets declared in the wealth tax return - HELD THAT:- From perusal of the assessment order as well as that of the CIT(A) we find that the assessee failed to appear on various occasions and also did not filed necessary details before the A.O. Though the Counsel for the assessee claimed that all necessary details were filed before CIT(A) but CIT(A) has not given due cognizance. We therefore in the interest of justice and to be fair to both the parties accept the request of Ld. Counsel for the assessee which has not been controverted by Ld. Departmental Representative to set aside all the issues raised in all the four appeals to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for afresh adjudication after examining various details and documents to be filed by the assessee. ....... + More
- 2019 (8) TMI 3
Dismissal of appeal for not filing the appeals online - HELD THAT:- In the A.Y. 2006-07, the ld. WTC(A) as well as the Tribunal have dealt with each and every properties of the assessee threadbare and during the years under consideration, the additions have been made by the A.O. with respect to the very same properties for which both the ld. WTC(A) and the Tribunal have decided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, there is no justification for the additions so made by the WTO. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the ld. WTC(A) found that the appeals have not been filed electronically, he has not given any opportunity to the assessees to file the same, accordingly, there is violation of principles of natural justice more particularly when all the issues were already decided by the Tribunal....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 1200
Reopening of assessment - escapement of wealth - reopening the assessment are based on DVO’s report - HELD THAT:- DVO’s report is not for the year under consideration and secondly, order of Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act was in exercise of power for assessment year 2002-03. We find merit in the plea of assessee that the report of DVO is not for the relevant years which have been reopened under section 17(1) of the Act. In any case, in the reasons recorded reference is made to valuation as on 31.03.2001, whereas the DVO had valued the property upto 31.03.2003. AO has not applied the last valuation completed in the case of assessee i.e. on 31.03.2003 at ₹ 26.35 crores, but has referred to DVO’s value as on 31.03.2001 at ₹ 16.33 crores, being the basis for reopening the assessment. We find no merit ....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 1199
Wealth-tax assessment - certain assets can be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee - HELD THAT:- When a non-taxable income by mistake is disclosed in the return of income, the same cannot be assessed to tax. The asset not belonging to the assessee or asset which are to be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee cannot be brought to the net wealth for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act though the same has been disclosed by the assessee in the return of wealth by mistake. When the assessee realizes his mistake, certainly the assessee can retract his mistake and raise the contention before the appellate authority that the assets disclosed in the return of net wealth cannot be included in the net wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax assessment. Similar view was held in the case of Raghavan Nair v. ACIT & Anr. [2018 (1) TMI 863 - K....... + More
- 2019 (6) TMI 937
Wealth tax assessment - revision application filed under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act - whether the properties in question are agricultural lands at the relevant time? - assessee for the first time before this Court, raised such a plea that the lands are agricultural lands without specifically pleading so in the revision application filed under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act - HELD THAT:- In the light of new plea, it is also noticed that learned counsel for writ petitioner fairly submits that the writ petitioner's case pertains to assessment year 2008-09 and subsequently in 2011, the land in question has been converted qua use. This statement is also noticed, which means, post 2011, there will be no claim by the writ petitioner under said Act. Order - The impugned order made by the first respondent is set aside. Though obvious, ....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 863
Wealth tax assessment - non recording of reason showing escapement of wealth from taxation - admission of additional ground - validity of the original order passed u/s 16(3) in appeal against the order passed u/s 25(2) where the original order passed u/s 16(3) which was was subject to revision - HELD THAT:- As decided by the coordinate bench in the case of Westlife Development [2016 (6) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI] is in Income Tax matter but the principles laid down squarely applies to the wealth tax matter also as respective section of the assessment, reassessment and revision are similar. In view this, we hold that there is no infirmity in the argument of the AR in challenging the validity of the assessment which is subject to revision. Now as per the earlier order of the coordinate bench in this appeal on the order sheet it was found that ....... + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 797
Lands exigible to Wealth-tax Act - 'urban lands' or 'agricultural lands' - AO brought the lands situated at Akkelenahalli- Mallenahalli villages under the ambit of wealth and adopting the guideline value of the lands, brought the same to tax under the Act - calculation of the distance of 8 KMs from BBMP limits - HELD THAT:- The assessee has filed a letter from the Anneshwara Gram Panchayat office confirming that the land does not come within the limits of any Corporation or Municipality and confirmation from the office of the Tahsildar, Devarahalli measuring the distance from BBMP limits. Per contra, Revenue's case is that the said lands are situated within BIAPPA which has an authority as per the definition of 'asset' which proposition has been negative by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M........ + More
- 2019 (5) TMI 442
Transit House as assessable under Wealth Tax - whether 'Transit House' fell within the definition of 'Assets', as defined in Section 2 (ea) of the Wealth Tax Act,1957, and was assessable to Wealth Tax or not ? - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of the Assessee by a Coordinate Bench of this Court under the Income Tax Act and also under the Wealth Tax Act. Under the Income Tax Act in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (present Assessee) [1997 (10) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and under the Wealth Tax Act in Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2012 (7) TMI 775 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] two different Coordinate Benches of this Court have decided the said issue in favour of the Assessee.
- 2019 (5) TMI 441
Asset within the canopy of section 2(ea) of the W.T. Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee had sold the land with dilapidated structure over it lock, stock and barrel to a third party and earned long term capital gain. In our view, this is not a proper ground for disallowing the claim of the assessee. Admittedly, what was sold during the Assessment Year 2006-07 was land with structure. When there is a structure on the land and when it is not in dispute that the structure was put to use in the earlier assessment years for manufacturing activity and when what was sold was commercial establishment it cannot be classified as urban land u/s 2(ea) - the land with structures which was used in earlier years for manufacturing, is not an asset within the canopy of section 2(ea) of the W.T. Act. It is in our view continues to be a commercial asset. Thus, we delete the addition made herein for both the assessment years.
- 2019 (5) TMI 440
Wealth Tax Liability - Whether vehicles reflected in the balance sheet are chargeable to wealth tax? - assessee has not filed Wealth Tax Return for the A.Y. 2009-10 hence, the case was reopened - difference finding of statement of wealth chargeable to tax and ultimately net wealth tax liability has been computed by the AO - appellant has not demonstrated that vehicle have been purchased out of loan, and the loan outstanding is more than the value of vehicle? - Since the appellant company has not been able to quantify the debt outstanding against the vehicle, plea of the assessee that the cash credit account has been used to purchase the said vehicle was, therefore, not accepted by the CIT(A) and thus at the time of hearing, the Learned Counsel further prays for the issue to be set aside to the file of the Learned CIT(A) to verify the same....... + More
- 2019 (4) TMI 1610
"Asset" for the purpose of levying the wealth-tax - agricultural activity was carried out on the land in question - exemption from wealth-tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case it is noticed that the term "assets" covered under the Wealth-tax Act is defined under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act in the exception to the said section 2(ea), urban land which is classified as agricultural and in the record of the Government and used for agricultural purposes does not came under the category of urban land for the purposes of definition of the assets on which wealth-tax is to be levied. In the present case the revenue record, i. e., khasra, girdwari copy of which is placed at page Nos. 5 to 10 of the assessee's compilation reveals that on the land belonging to the assessee, crop of paddy and wheat were grown, therefore....... + More
........
|
