|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3612 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 (12) TMI 1135
Wealth tax assessment - Period of limitation - Order was passed beyond period of one year as required u/s 17A(2) of the WT Act, and consequently the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 18(1)(c) - ITAT which has, confirmed the order made by the Commissioner (Appeals), remanding the matter to the Wealth Tax Officer for re-examination and re-assessment after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, we are of the opinion that, the observation made therein that explanation (3) to Section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act is applicable, is really a prima facie observation. This is clear from the fact that both the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the ITAT have directed the Wealth Tax Officer to re-examine the matter, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant herein. ITA....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 1134
Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth tax Act - Defective notice - HELD THAT:- In the present case, section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act is para materia with section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. Being so, the facts for imposing penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act will be applicable to the facts of the present case. As seen from the above notice for imposing penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act, the Assessing Officer has not struck out the irrelevant portion of the notice. In other words he has not specified whether he is levying penalty for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. As held in the case of CIT & Anr. vs. M/s. SSA’s Emerald Meadows [2015 (11) TMI 1620 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] that the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) is to be bad in law....... + More
- 2019 (12) TMI 603
Wealth tax assessment - notice has not been issued within the time limit prescribed as per the act - HELD THAT:- Provisions of section 42 of the act saves only validly issued notices within the time limit, if, not served upon the assessee, not served upon him in time and served upon him in an improper manner, if not objected before WTO. Notice itself has been issued beyond the time prescribed u/s 16(2) of the Wealth Tax Act. Thus, according to us the provision of section 42 does not apply to a situation where the notice has not been issued within the time limit prescribed as per the act. The ld CWT (A) has erred in invoking of provisions of section 42 of the WT Act to such notice, which has been issued beyond the time limit prescribed u/s 16(2) of the WT Act. Accordingly, we hold that as the ld Wealth Tax Officer has failed to issue the n....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1155
Net wealth assessment - value of the land as on the date of valuation - whether the same is includable as net wealth in the hands of the assessee in the absence of permission received for construction from the competent authority or any construction being carried out, as on the valuation date ? - HELD THAT:- As decided in own case for AY 2014-15 we direct the Assessing Officer to include the value of the aforesaid lands in the hands of the assessee in the respective years. However, for the purpose of determining the value as on the valuation date, the assessee shall file the valuation report from the Registered Valuer or the Assessing Officer may obtain the necessary valuation report from the DVO in this regard and compute the net wealth and Assessing Officer is also directed to allow the value of debts as on the dates of purchase of plot....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1124
Wealth escaping assessment - Lack of jurisdiction of ACIT, Circle-9(1), Bengaluru who issued notice u/s 17 of WT Act - HELD THAT:- We find merits in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee that the validity of notice issued under section 17 of the Act is primarily required to be adjudicated before a decision can be rendered on the merits of the additions made in the assessment. Under section 124 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 when a challenge to jurisdiction is raised, it is incumbent on the part of the AO to adjudicate the same or he has to make reference of the issue of determination of jurisdiction to the authorities specified under section 124(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In the light of the above statutory provisions, we are of the view that it is incumbent on the part of the CWT(A) to have adjudicated on this issue CWT(A), in....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 1121
Net Wealth determination - valuation of property - Fair market value versus Circle rate - It was submitted that, assessee was not even in a position to avail the loan against this property, as the said land had encroachments on it - HELD THAT:- In the absence of production of any material in support of the assessee’s contentions, the AO has adopted the circle rate available in www.tnreginet.net as the market value and assessed the value for each of the impugned assessment year. The ld.CWT(A) has held that the assessee canvassed certain factors for adoption of lower value, however, he has not proved either to the satisfaction of the AO or to the satisfaction of the ld CWT(A) that what is canvassed by him is the fact and hence he upheld the action of the AO for the assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13, respectively. Even before us also....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 44
Jewellery estimation - Revised valuation in respect of all the items of jewellery whether or not covered by the FIRs - reduced value of the jewellery for the purpose of determining the net wealth of the assessee and passed the assessment orders - valuation figures as supported by valuation report of Registered Valuer and WTO - HELD THAT:- In respect of the value of such items of jewellery as are not covered by the FIR, it occurs to our mind that there is inherent inconsistency in the approach of the Ld. CIT(A), because while referring to schedule III of the Act in the light of Section 7 read with Rule 18 thereof, CIT(A) made an observation that the jewellery shall be valued on the estimation of the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. If it would be so, we do not find any logic in the CIT(A) directi....... + More
- 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
........
|
