Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Home Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles News Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Tri Wealth-tax - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Wealth-tax - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 1402 Records

  • 2017 (11) TMI 811 - ITAT KOLKATA

    Surendra Pal Singh Versus DCWT, Circle-2, Siliguri

    Inclusion of cash on hand of the proprietor business of the assessee to the net wealth of the assessee - Held that - Cash in hand referred to in Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act 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. If it is so held, then the purpose of valuation method prescribed in Schedule III Rule 14 of the Rule wo....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 249 - ITAT JAIPUR

    Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Circle-2, Jaipur

    Addition in return wealth of the assessee by treating unapproved/agriculture plots/lands as taxable assets - Held that - The asset is exempt in view of the provisions of Section 2(ea)(iv) of Wealth tax Act. As on this land the construction is not permissible. Secondly, the assessee has disputed the valuation adopted by the Assessing Officer. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contention of the assessee. We find that the Assessing O....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 241 - ITAT DELHI

    Ms. Megha Garg C/o. Shri Tej Mohan Singh Versus The DCWT, Circle-25 (1) New Delhi

    Initiation of reassessment proceedings under section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act - non supply of reasons to believe - Held that - Copy of the reasons for reopening of the assessment under Wealth Tax have not been supplied to the assessee within the period of limitation. The submissions of the assessee made before the A.O. and Ld. CWT(A) have not been rebutted by the department through any evidence or material on record. It, therefore, stands proved ....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 237 - ITAT BANGALORE

    Shri A. Abdul Rafeekh Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central Circle 2 (2) , Bangalore

    Additions of cash in hand held and recorded in regular books of accounts and shown in the business balance sheet of the appellant - meaning of assets as defined in Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that - Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities in the light of rival submissions, we find that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income in the capacity of individual, though he has been doing his own busin....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 227 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

    Smt. Savitaben Chandulal Patel Versus The Wealth Tax Officer

    Chargeability of wealth-tax on certain parcels of land - whether parcels of land being agricultural land are excluded from definition of Urban Land given under s.2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? - Held that - We notice from the purchase-deed dated 09/09/2005 with reference to agricultural land at Suratas referred to at the course of hearing on behalf of the assessee that aforesaid agricultural land was held as agricultural land and cultivated f....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 221 - ITAT PUNE

    The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Versus Vijay Arjundas Luthra

    Maintainability of appeal filed by the Revenue on account of tax effect - Held that - The present appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable, hence the same is dismissed for low tax effect. We are not adjudicating the issue on merits in this regard. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are thus, dismissed........ + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 217 - ITAT JAIPUR

    Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Versus The ACWT, Circle-2, Jaipur

    Addition treating unapproved/agriculture plots/lands as taxable assets - whether the assessee s having various pieces of land/plots falls under the exclusion clause of section 2(ea)(v) read with explanation (b) so as to not fall within the definition of urban land which is otherwise exigible for wealth tax? - Held that - We are presently not going into the debate of prohibition vs permission for carrying out construction on these assets as sought....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 216 - ITAT PUNE

    The Wealth Tax Officer, Ward – 1 (1) , Jalgaon Versus Shri Chandrakant Dinkar Nehete

    Valuation of asset for the purpose of Wealth Tax - valuation at value as per Govt Approved Valuer s report filed for obtaining loan from bank or the value shown by the appellant in the returns of wealth on the basis of value of the property for stamp duty purpose - Held that - The perusal of Form No.E filed before the CWT(A) reflects that the issue raised by the assessee was against the order of WTO in making addition of ₹ 27,62,680/- to th....... + More


  • 2017 (11) TMI 214 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

    G. Ravinder Reddy Versus DCWT, Visakhapatnam

    Assessment of advances paid for purchase of plots - whether the advances made for purchase of plots constitute an asset or not within the meaning of section 2(ea) of the Act for the purpose of wealth tax act? - Held that - From the plain reading of section 2(ea) of the W.T. Act, the taxable assets are the building or land appurtenant thereto, motor cars, jewellery, bullion and furniture or any other article made of gold, silver, platinum or any o....... + More


  • 2017 (9) TMI 1535 - ITAT HYDERABAD

    Shri B. Rajeswar Rao Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11 (1) , Hyderabad

    Cash seized represents the asset u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that - We find that the said sub clause (vi) of the clause (ea) of section 2 defines the assets to mean cash in hand in excess of ₹ 50,000 of individuals and HUF. - Undisputedly, the assessee is an individual. The Longman Business dictionary defines cash in hand as the amount of money in the form of cash that a company has after it has paid all its costs; the amount of ....... + More


  • 2017 (5) TMI 1493 - ITAT PUNE

    Asst. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central Circle-1, Nashik Versus Urmil Vijay Luthra, Vijay A. Luthra (HUF) , Vijay Arjundas Luthra

    Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - Held that - We hold that in the present bunch of appeals filed by the Revenue, where the tax effect is below ₹ 2 lakhs and applying Instruction No.05/2008, dated 15.05.2008 issued by the CBDT, the aforesaid appeals filed by the Revenue are not maintainable and hence, the same are dismissed........ + More


  • 2017 (3) TMI 1419 - ITAT RAJKOT

    WTO, Ward-2 (1) (2) , Rajkot Versus Shri Mandhatasinji M. Jadeja and Smt. Kadambaridevi M. Jadeja

    Penalty imposed under s.18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act - concealment of any particulars of wealth per se - CWT(A) directed the AO to cancel the penalty - Held that - No infirmity in the reasoning of the CWT(A). The CWT(A), in our view, has appreciated the facts in perspective. It is not a case where any wealth was kept hidden from the knowledge of the Department. It is merely a case where the assessee has initially agitated the taxability of cash in ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 143 - ITAT DELHI

    Anil Arora Versus WCIT, Central Circle-02, New Delhi

    Addition of taxable wealth of the assessee because of surrender of the cash found in locker during the course of search - Held that - The undisputed fact is that that assessee tried to explain the amount of cash seized from the locker with syndicate bank which was in the name of the assessee and the amount of ₹ 30 lakhs was found there from. Further, the explanation of the assessee was also not found to be correct that money belongs to the ....... + More


  • 2016 (11) TMI 63 - ITAT HYDERABAD

    The Wealth Tax Officer Versus Mr. Y. Ravichand

    Exemption of the value of the plot to the extent of 500 sq. mts under section 5(1)(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act - CIT(A) treating it as a basic exemption limit and deleting the addition made by the A.O. in respect of such limit - Held that - It is an asset being plot of land comprising of an area of 500 sq. mts or less which is exempt from tax and not up to 500 sq. mts or less. Therefore, the finding of the CWT(A) is not tenable since the assessee p....... + More


  • 2016 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT KOLKATA

    M/s. Navin Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. Versus A.C.W.T., CC-IV, Kolkata

    Asset for the purpose of wealth tax - whether house property which has been let out to a tenant would be outside the ambit of wealth tax under section 2(ea)(i)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act? - Held that - Considering the submission of assessee that the memorandum explaining the provision in the finance No.2 Bill, 1998 under the head incentives proposed under the Wealth Tax Act , it is clarified that wealth tax is not levied on productive assets. In vi....... + More


  • 2016 (9) TMI 243 - ITAT HYDERABAD

    Wealth Tax Officer, Ward 16 (2) Hyderabad Versus M/s. Nikhila Estates (P) Ltd.

    Nature of land - wealth assessment - urban land - Held that - We find that the asset considered for wealth tax by the AO is claimed to be agricultural land by the assessee. Before the CIT (A), assessee has allegedly filed copies of the sale deeds and also pahanis for the relevant A.Ys. However, we find that the CIT (A), has neither verified the veracity and authenticity of the said documents by herself, nor has she called for a remand report from....... + More


  • 2016 (9) TMI 186 - ITAT HYDERABAD

    M/s. Siseri Agro Farms P. Ltd. And 40 Others Versus Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central Circle-3 (2) , Hyderabad.

    Nature of land - whether the said lands fall within the definition of Urban land , so as to bring it to wealth tax? - Held that - The issue whether the said lands fall within the definition of Urban land , so as to bring it to wealth tax require re-examination by the Assessing Officer in the light of the fact that Bachupally village is not in the Qutubullapur Municipality and also not one among the 8 Gram Panchayats notified in 16.04.2007 notific....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 659 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

    Wealth Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5) , Ahmedabad Versus Pannalal Baijnath Jaiswal

    Wealth tax assessment on the properties owned by the assessee - as assessee s contention that the properties cannot be considered to be an asset within the meaning of term asset as wealth defined under Wealth Tax Act - Held that - We find that the ld.CWT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that assessee was receiving rent from the profits which has been considered by WTO as wealth and the properties were covered under Exception fou....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 464 - ITAT PUNE

    DCWT, Circle-2, Jalgaon Versus Shri Manoj Bansilal. Biyani

    Penalty leviable on the mortgaged assets claimed by the assessee as exempt u/s.2(m) of the W.T. Act - denial of deduction u/s.2(m) of the Act on account of mortgaged assets - Held that - Tribunal in batch appeal has already deleted such addition/disallowance on the ground that properties mortgaged to the bank cannot be held as assets belonging to the assessee u/s.2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act. Since the quantum addition has already been deleted, the....... + More


  • 2016 (7) TMI 422 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM

    Devineni Avinash Versus WTO, Ward-2 (3) , Vijayawada

    Nature of land - whether the land held by the assessee is an urban land coming within the definition of asset as per section 2(ea) of the Act or is a stock in trade, which is kept outside the definition of asset? - Held that - The assessee has filed a statement of affairs before the assessing officer and claimed that the impugned land is an immovable property. Just because land is under Joint Development, it cannot be considered that the asset is....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version