|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3598 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 (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
2019 (4) TMI 1546 Wealth tax assessment - Taxability of flat as rented out for complete financial year - assessee submitted that the flat was let out for more than 300 days in the impugned assessment year and the rental income was admitted on actual basis - HELD THAT:- There was no evidence brought on record by the AO to establish that the flat was let out for less than 300 days or the assessee had under stated the rental income, thus the addition was made purely on suspicion. As per law, the AO is not permitted to make any addition on presumptions and surmises unless there is a material on record to show that the flat was not let out for more than 300 days. In the instant case, there was no evidence, hence, the addition made by the AO is unsustainable, accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. Reopening of as....... + More
2019 (4) TMI 1195 Urban land chargeable to wealth tax - Agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation - Lands in question exempted for wealth tax under section 2(ea) - HELD THAT:- Lands in question are exempted from wealth tax under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, hence, not chargeable to wealth tax Agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation on which no construction is put up is not chargeable to wealth tax. Therefore, the assessee's case squarely falls within the definition of agricultural land as well as the amended provisions of Wealth Tax Act, where construction is not permissible. Accordingly we hold that the lands in question are exempted for wealth tax u/s 2(ea), hence not chargeable to wealth tax. We are unable to sustain the orders of the lower authorities and allow the appeal of the assessee. See SRI VEGESNA ANANTHA KOTI RAJU VERSUS DCWT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VISAKHAPATNAM [ [2018 (2) TMI 1878 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] ]
2019 (4) TMI 390 Monetary limits for filing of wealth tax appeals - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- In view of extension of circular to wealth tax appeals coming into effect, which is applicable to pending appeals, the present appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal are liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. Therefore, without going into merits of the additions made in the hands of assessee, we dismiss the appeals filed by Revenue. The Cross Objections filed by assessee against appeals filed by the Revenue have thus become infructuous and are dismissed accordingly. Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeals with the requisite material to show that the appeals are protected by the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of the Circular No. 3/2018 (supra) or for any other tenable reason. In the result, appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed.
2019 (3) TMI 658 Inheritance of property - Held that:- The facts and circumstances of the present appeal are identical to the facts in H.H. BHAWANI SINGH (INDIVIDUAL) , VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF WT, NEW DELHI [2011 (2) TMI 1560 - ITAT DELHI], where The Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the first appellate authority. We set aside the issue to the file of the learned first appellate authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the order of the Tribunal - the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
2019 (3) TMI 296 Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - existence of substantial question of law - whether the appeal has to be considered on merits without being hindered by the monetary limits if it involves a substantial question of law of importance and such question arises repeatedly? - HELD THAT:- the question of law has now been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court [2016 (1) TMI 826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Repeated instances of such question of law arising does not arise at all, since the Wealth Tax Act is no more in force. The extant litigation policy which restrains the Department from taking up any appeal under Section 260A; if the demand is less than Rupees Fifty Lakhs. Considering the overall circumstances of the assessee having expired in the year 2010, the refund orders as per the order of the Tribunal having been issued, and als....... + More
2019 (3) TMI 172 Maintainability of wealth tax appeal - monetary limit - HELD THAT:- The CBDT vide earlier Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018 had prescribed the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court. As per para 11 of said circular, it was specified that monetary limit in para 3 shall not apply to writ matters and direct matters other than income tax and filing of appeals in such cases shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of Statute and rules. However, vide circular No.5/2019, dated 05.02.2019, the CBDT has recognized vide para 2 that there is no charge under Wealth Tax Act, 1957 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and hence as a step towards litigation management, the Board has decided that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income tax cases as prescr....... + More
2019 (2) TMI 838 Reopening of wealth tax assessment - cash in hand appearing in balance sheet - Held that:- The assessee is a proprietary concern. The cash balance generated out of trading activity is treated as business asset and as such, business asset was not to be treated as cash in hand within the meaning of section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. In our considered opinion, we hold that cash in hand referred to in section 2(ea)(vi) represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset. Admittedly, the impugned cash in hand represents the cash belonging to business of the assessee and thereby partakes the character of business asset. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. In respect of property No........ + More
........
|
