|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 3697 Records
-
2019 (1) TMI 810 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Concealment of wealth and the penalty imposed accordingly - valuation of property for wealth tax assessment - valuation report of the registered Valuer estimating the value of the property as on 1st April, 1981 rejected - Held that:- Assessee had declared the two immovable properties in the wealth tax return has also offered valuation of such properties. This was based on the valuation report of the registered Valuer estimating the value of the property as on 1st April, 1981. The Wealth Tax Officer did not accept this valuation which was partially sustained in appeal. The Commissioner adopted the standards of the sale of the property in the near vicinity at the same time. It was under such circumstances that the Tribunal did not think it fit to confirm the penalty. We are broadly in agreement in view of the Tribunal.
-
2019 (1) TMI 553 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the cash-in-hand as found on the last day of the accounting year as revealed from the books of account of the various assessees could be treated as an asset under section 2(ea) of the Act?
Held that:- Admittedly, the cash-in-hand held by the appellants herein are with respect to business transactions, the accounts of which were regularly maintained and the income thereon proffered for assessment before the Income-tax authorities. The cash so held in their hand were also recorded in the books of account, with certain exceptions, as we see from the orders of the Assessing Officer. The exceptions are in so far as the Assessing Officer having taxed only such amounts, which were kept in hand and which were in excess of ₹ 50,000 on a reading of sub-clause (vi) of clause (ea). The levy made by the authorities of all such cash-in-hand, whether disclosed in the accounts or not was only of that in excess of ₹ 50,000 - sub-clause (vi) of section 2(ea) is in two limbs, one covering individuals and HUF's and the second "the other persons". As far as the former is concerned, only such cash-in-hand in excess of ₹ 50,000 would be brought to tax under the Act and as far as the second limb "the other persons" are concerned, any amount, even within the limit of ₹ 50,000 kept in hand and not recorded in the books of account will be brought to tax under the Act.
The law, in this case the specific amendment seeking to tax the non-productive cash-in-hand as wealth, available in section 2(ea)(vi) is constitutionally valid. However, the officers have deviated from the policy and principle explicit from the enactment and hence such action taken under the Act for assessment of cash-in-hand of the assessees, disclosed in the books of account, but in excess of ₹ 50,000, has to be set aside.
Petition disposed off declaring and holding that the "other persons" as coming in the second limb of section 2(ea)(vi) includes those persons who carry on a commercial activity and are statutorily required to maintain books of account under the Income-tax Act - The writ petitioner, a proprietary firm engaged in the business of jewellery, is declared to be entitled to be absolved from the liability to tax under the Wealth-tax Act, for any amounts held as cash-in-hand, recorded in the books of account.
The is answered in favour of the assessees and against the Revenue.
-
2018 (12) TMI 418 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Inclusion of two plots of land to net wealth as 'urban land' u/s. 2(ea) (v) of the wealth tax Act - Held that:- There is a clear distinction between a case where the construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time in force and where construction though permissible, must be preceded by permission, approval or sanction from the prescribed authority. Counsel for the Assessee had argued that the Wealth Tax is to be computed on the basis of net wealth of an Assessee on the prescribed date on which construction of a building was not permissible on the land in question. In our opinion, this argument begs the question. As held by us, requirement of permission for construction would not make construction on the land impermissible. This being the position, as on which date such requirement is being tested would be of no consequence. In our opinion, therefore, question (a) raised by Assessee, does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
For the purposes of enabling the Assessee to appear before the Tribunal only press question No.(b) and (c) in relation to the respective Wealth Tax Appeals, the impugned common judgment of the Tribunal is set aside. Appeals are restored to the Tribunal for fresh consideration
-
2018 (11) TMI 1437 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessments made on urban land owned by the assessee as covered by the definition clause Section 2(ea) Explanation I (b) - value of urban land taken as on the valuation date - Held that:- With respect to the Chandigarh property, the Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the first appellate order. We also find no reason to interfere with the order insofar as the Chandigarh property since, it is on facts and based on the evidence produced by the assessee. - Decided in favour of assessee.
With respect to the urban land other than the land in Chandigarh as we noticed when we discussed the First Appellate Authority's order, it is specifically noticed that no evidence was produced with respect to the other lands;as to whether they are beyond the limit as prescribed in Explanation I or are occupied with buildings. No approval for such construction or licences for carrying on business of freezing units were produced by the assessee. In such circumstance, the Tribunal went wrong in finding that there was lack of clarity in the order of the lower authorities. In fact, the lower authorities did not say anything about the lands being occupied by buildings because the assessee did not produce any evidence to show that.
In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that the finding of the Tribunal on facts is perverse. The Tribunal ought not to have shifted the burden of proving that the lands were occupied with buildings, on to the shoulders of the Revenue. We see that there is no appearance before this Court and there is no production of any evidence with respect to lands, the value of which was added on, being occupied with buildings. We hence answer the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2018 (11) TMI 1025 - ITAT BANGALORE
Validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s.17 - AO was correct in treating the said lands as ‘urban land’ and consequently the said lands are liable to be included in the net wealth of the assessee and be exigible to wealth-tax - ‘urban lands’ or ‘agricultural lands’ - Held that:- On the issue that since said land is situated in BIAPPA which is an ‘authority’, the said land is urban land and therefore, a capital asset exigible to wealth-tax, we find that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee. BIAPPA does not qualify to be local authority and therefore, the said lands are agricultural lands and not urban land or capital assets as canvassed by Revenue. Consequently, ground No.3 of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Reckoning of urbanization as a factor for prescribing the distance is of significance which would yield to the principle of measuring distance in terms of approach roads rather than by straight line or horizontal plane or as per crows flight’. Thus, it is clear to us that for the period under consideration, in the appeals before us i.e. assessment year 2007-08 & 2009-10 the distance has to be calculated by road and not as the crow flies or by straight line. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, there is no merit in the contention of the revenue.
As regards conversion of land from Agricultural use to non agricultural use, the Tribunal in Assessees own case dealt with this issue in paragraph 7.3 to 7.3.10 and held that though the subject land was converted into non-agricultural purposes, cultivation of the land for agricultural purposes till the date of sale continued unabated and as such, the land should be treated as agricultural land. These findings will equally apply for the AYs in these appeals as the character of the land in question remained the same in these AYs also.
Respectfully following the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for assessment year 2005-06 and of another co-ordinate bench in the case of Shri M.R.Seetharam in we hold that the said lands in question are not ‘urban lands’ but ‘agricultural lands’ and hence not exigible to wealth-tax. Consequently, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed.
-
2018 (11) TMI 107 - TELANGANA AND ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital asset - exemption from wealth ta act - whether Subject land is an “asset” within the meaning of Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- If the appellants are held to have treated the subject land as a “capital asset”, the assessing authority would have treated transfer of the said asset, pursuant to the joint development agreement, as liable to tax as capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act; and the very fact that they did not, reflects their understanding that the assessee intended to treat this asset only as a stock-in-trade for the purpose of carrying on business.
It is possible that the assessing authority was of the view that execution of a joint development agreement did not automatically result in the transfer of the asset. The mere fact that the appellants-assessees were not subjected to tax towards capital gains under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act would not necessitate the inference that the subject “land” was treated as stock-in-trade for the purpose of carrying on business; and is, therefore, exempt from tax under Section 3(2) of the Wealth Tax Act.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is the final Court of fact. An appeal to the High Court lies, under Section 27A(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, only if the High Court is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law. We are satisfied that the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal, and its conclusions on law, are not such as to necessitate interference in proceedings under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. Appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1192 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Treatment to the Royal Buggy as ‘work of art’ and exempted under Section 5(i)(xii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Tribunal held the issue in favour of the assessee as relying on Shantadevi P. Gaekwad Vs. Wealth-tax Officer [2017 (6) TMI 687 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] - Revenue drew our attention to certain legislative changes, which took place in the said Act and that Clause (xii) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 stood deleted with effect from 01.04.1993 by virtue of Act 18 of 1992.
Held that:- The assessee appeared on caveat and consented to final disposal of the Tax Appeals at this very stage. He candidly agreed to the contentions raised by the Counsel for the Revenue. It does not appear that legislative changes were brought to the notice of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and resultantly, the Tribunal fell in error in applying the ratio of judgment of this Court, which was rendered in the backdrop of the Assessment Year 1972-73 when Clause (xii) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 5 of the Act was still in force. As noted with effect from 01.04.1993, this Section came to be dropped. We are concerned with the Assessment Year 2004-05 and onwards.
In the result, the impugned common judgment of the Tribunal rendered in favour of assessee in the Cross Appeals for the respective Assessment Years is set aside. The judgment of the Revenue authority is restored. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 1055 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Net-wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax as provided in section 2(ea)(v) - inclusion of land - amendment made by the Finance Act, 2013 with regard to urban land which is basically an agriculture land, but fall within the ambit of urban municipal limit - Held that:- After the amendment, such land would not be included in the net-wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax as provided in section 2(ea)(v). DR unable to controvert this finding of fact recorded by the CIT(A). As far as urban land viz. Muthiya and land at Vastral are concerned. CIT(A) has recorded a specific finding of fact that construction has commenced.
Now this is a finding of fact recorded by the ld.CIT(A) who is at a higher pedestal in the hierarchy. The ld.first Appellate Authority has observed that observation of the AO qua non-commencement of construction is factually incorrect. This finding of the fact could be reversed only if the something is brought to our notice. No material has been brought to our notice, which can show that this finding of fact is contrary to the facts. In the absence of such step, we do not see any reasons to interfere in the orders of the ld.CIT(A), hence, all the appeals of Revenue in the case of Kantibhai T. Savaliya is dismissed.
As far as appeals of Shri Harshadbhai K. Savaliya, he was also owner and in possession of two types of land; one claim which is agriculture land within ambit of municipal limit, and another nonagriculture land under construction. CIT(A) has accepted the fact that agriculture land are not required to be included in the net wealth of the assessee on account of amendment made in the Wealth Tax Act by Finance Act, 2013. As far as non-agriculture lands are concerned, constructions have been commenced on them. The ld.CWT(A) has been satisfied with the quality of evidence produced by the assessee in this regard. There is no disparity of facts qua the facts of Shri Kantibhai T. Savaliya, which we have discussed in the earlier part of the order, wherein we have noticed the finding of the ld.CIT(A) in the Asstt.Year 2007-08. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we do not find any merit in these appeals, thus dismissed.
-
2018 (10) TMI 750 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Escapement of income chargeable to wealth tax - validity of reasons for issuing the notice - non filing of return under the Wealth Tax Act - Petitioner raised objections to the impugned notice mainly contending that the assessee has no net wealth and in fact, the balance-sheet shows negative capital balance - Held that:- Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 enables the AO to assess or reassess the net wealth of the assessee by issuing notice if he has reason to believe that net wealth chargeable to tax in respect of such person had escaped assessment.
In the present case, admittedly, the assessee had not filed his return under the Wealth Tax Act. The Assessing Officer, in all probabilities, from the return of income filed by the assessee under the Income Tax Act and the documents annexed therewith noticed that the assessee had sizeable investment in fixed asset valuation of which along with cash in hand showed by the assessee came to ₹ 2.30 crores (rounded off) after reducing the exemption wealth of ₹ 30 lacs. He prima facie believed that net taxable wealth of ₹ 2 crore had escaped assessment. After recording proper reasons, he issued the impugned notice/
We see no reason to interfere. The assessee's contention that the loans were raised to acquire such capital assets would require exemption and therefore assessment. While disposing of such an objection, the Assessing Officer correctly observed that the assessee had not showed co-relation between the borrowing and the acquisition of assets. He noticed that in the income tax return, the assessee had claimed interest expenditure in relation to income from other sources. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 749 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Asset chargeable to wealth tax - Exemption u/s 2(ea)(i)(3) of Wealth Tax Act on share of property - commercial asset - whether asset has not fulfilled the conditions to be categorized as commercial establishment? - assessee and other co-owner had purchased a Cinema Theatre with the land and buildings appurtenant thereto - Held that:- As long as the assessee owns the commercial asset, which is capable of being put to productive use, the said commercial asset is not exigible to Wealth Tax. In this case, the assessee along with two other companies owns the theatre but could not run the theatre due to various reasons but that does not mean that the property has lost its character. Hence, we are satisfied that it is in the nature of commercial establishment, and the exclusion provided in section 2(ea)(i)(3) would be applicable. Therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT (A) which is on similar lines. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (10) TMI 685 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Wealth tax assessment of land - Additions to the wealth of the assessee by refusing to accept the claim of the assessee that the five lands in four villages are exempt assets u/s. 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act - CIT(A) has deleted the lands situated at Mysuravaripalle Village - Assessee has claimed that these lands are agricultural lands, even though situated within 8 KMs from the municipal limits but construction on these lands is not permissible as these lands were not converted into urban lands
Held that:- Assessee has not brought on record any evidence in support of the above claim, but she prayed before the Assessing Officer that this may be verified with the SRO and appropriate action may be taken by the Assessing Officer. Now, we noticed from the additional evidence submitted by assessee relating to agricultural activities in the lands situated at Mangalam and Venkatramapuram Villages which are issued by village authorities.
Since the additional evidence indicates that these lands were agricultural lands and also the certificates are issued by the Sarpanch of the respective village, in our considered view, this should be verified by the Assessing Officer by making a physical verification of the land and by obtaining proper information from the respective Panchayat Board. Since the assessee has not submitted any evidence relating to two lands situated at Avilala Village, therefore, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify these lands in person and make the appropriate addition or deletion to the wealth of the assessee. Therefore, the appeal filed by the assessee is remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2018 (10) TMI 311 - SC ORDER
Correct fair market value of the property as on the relevant valuation date - value declared by assessee - Held that:- The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. However, the question of law is left open. Pending application stands disposed of.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1793 - ITAT CHENNAI
Validity of revisions - change of opinion - Section 25(2) of Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- Admittedly the return in Form-BA is a statutory form and in the said Form, provision has been provided for claiming the set off of the debts owed in relation to asset ‘cash on hand’. When such set off is permissible while computing the value of the specified asset u/s.2(ea)(vi) of the Act, interpretation to section 2(m) is only a change of opinion. In any case, the ld. Assessing Officer, when completing the assessment u/s.16(3) of the Act, has also examined the issue of assessee’s claim in respect of set off of the debts owed in relation to asset ‘cash on hand’. Thus, the order passed u/s 25(2) of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax is clearly on a change of opinion, which is not permissible for the purpose of revision.
The order passed u/s.25(2) of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Central-2, Chennai is set aside as it is done on the basis of change of opinion, which is not permissible u/s.25(2) of the Act - appeal allowed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 1567 - ITAT BANGALORE
Validity of re-opening the assessments of wealth - 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 - land is situated within 8 Km from BBMP by following Straight Line method (SLM) for measurement of distance - Held that:- We find that the said issue is covered in favour of the assessee by decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the aforesaid two assessees’ cases, along with other co-owners in which the Tribunal held that BIAPPA does not qualify to be an authority and therefore, the said lands are agricultural lands and not urban land or capital assets as canvassed by Revenue. Consequently, ground of Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.
Whether the distance has to be considered as the crow flies i.e the distance has to be calculated aerially and not by road? - Held that:- In the case of CIT vs. Satinder Pal Singh (2010 (1) TMI 752 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT) it was held that the reckoning of urbanization as a factor for prescribing the distance is of significance which would yield to the principle of measuring distance in terms of approach roads rather than by straight line or horizontal plane or as per crows flight’. Thus, it is clear to us that for the period under consideration, in the appeals before us i.e. assessment year 2007-08 the distance has to be calculated by road and not as the crow flies or by straight line. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, ground No.2 raised Revenue is dismissed.
The said lands in question are not ‘urban lands’ but ‘agricultural lands’ and hence not exigible to wealth-tax. Consequently, Revenue’s appeals are dismissed. See assessee’s own case[2015 (11) TMI 951 - ITAT BANGLORE]. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (9) TMI 1422 - ITAT KOLKATA
Wealth tax assessment - CWTA justification in deleting the addition to net wealth - Held that:- There is no additional document or evidence filed by the assessee before the ld CITA. All the documents filed by the assessee more particularly the rent agreements and the name of the tenants occupying the warehouses were already part of income tax assessment records and that the income tax assessment for the very same assessment year i.e Asst Year 2011-12 was completed by the ld AO u/s 143(3) of the Act on 13.3.2014 .
We find that the AO himself in the first para of his wealth tax assessment order states that ‘on scrutiny of assessment records’. Hence all the details that were duly appreciated by the ld CITA were already part of income tax assessment records. We also find that the revenue had disputed only Rule 46A violation and had not disputed the fact and finding of ld CITA on the ground that the subject mentioned warehouses fall within the exclusion clause of definition of assets u/s 2(ea) of the Act. The issue is already covered by the decision of this tribunal referred to supra. In these facts and circumstances, we hold that there is no violation of Rule 46A of the IT Rules as alleged by the revenue in its grounds of appeal. Hence we hold that the warehouses owned by the assessee squarely falls within the exclusion clause of section 2(ea) of the Act and accordingly not liable to wealth tax. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed.
-
2018 (9) TMI 239 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Exemption from wealth tax - whether 28 Acres of ‘urban land’ comes under the ambit of the exemption clause of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? - person to be the ‘owner’ - protective assessment - Held that:- The words “belonging to” are of wider import and more flexible than the narrower term of ‘ownership’.
Sub-section (8) of Section 4 also permits the assets to be taxed in the hands of the Assessee, even if the asset is not yet fully de jure transferred to him and invoking the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Assessee retains the possession of such property in part performance of the contract. Section 8 deems such a person to be the ‘owner’ of that building or property and allows taxability in his hands even though the title in favour of the Assessees is not yet crystallized.
The intention of the Legislature is, therefore, obvious i.e. to throw the tax net under the provisions of the Wealth-Tax a little wider and not to cover only the ‘owners’ of the assets stricto sensu.
In this perspective, we find ourselves fortified in taking the view that the assets in question namely ‘urban lands’ belonging to Assessees for which they are not only claiming ‘ownership’ through litigation but are undoubtedly in possession, dominion and control but also in user of the land yielding income therefrom, they cannot be held to be outside the tax net under the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957.
'Protective Assessments’- Held that:- As already noted above that the demands in question have been raised under the ‘Protective Assessments’ only framed by the Assessing Authority and the recovery on the basis of the same is not enforceable as of now and therefore, the appellate Orders by the Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner of Wealth-Tax (Appeals) even though decided the Questions on merits would remain in the character of the ‘Protective Assessments’ only, but since the Tribunal has decided the question of law also, that is why it has given rise to the aforesaid Substantial Questions of law which we are called upon to decide.
Question No.1 is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Respondent Assessees and we hold that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was not justified in law in holding that 28 Acres of land located within the Corporation limits of the Bangalore City does not fall within the definition of ‘Assets’ in Section 2 (ea)(b) of the Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 and no Wealth Tax on these lands is chargeable. We hold that the Wealth Tax would be chargeable for these Assessment Years in question in the hands of the Respondent Assessees as the “urban lands” in question ‘belonged to’ the Assessees on the respective ‘Valuation Dates’ relevant to A.Y. 1999-2000 to A.Y. 2004-05 in question.
Question of law No.2 also in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessees and hold that there was no total prohibition against raising of any sort of construction of a Building on the lands in question either under the interim Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by virtue of Karnataka Parks, Play Fields and Open Places (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985 and in view of the fact that temporary or semi-permanent constructions were raised from time to time on these lands in question, the ‘urban lands’ in question ‘belonging to’ the Assessees could not fall in the Exclusion Clause (b) of Explanation to Section 2 (ea) of the Wealth-Tax Act, defining the term “Assets”.
Question of law No.3 in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessees and hold that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was not justified in setting aside the “Protective Assessments” made by the Assessing Authority for the Assessment Years A.Y. 1999-2000 to A.Y. 2004-05 in question. The Assessing Authority would be free to now proceed to make substantive assessments in the hands of the Respondent Assessee.
-
2018 (8) TMI 1491 - ITAT INDORE
Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act - concealment of particulars of wealth - assessee filed the wealth tax return only after issuance of notice u/s 17(1A) - Held that:- The records placed before us shows that the allegations made by both the lower authorities is not correct, as the assessee filed the return few days before the notice issued u/s 17(1A) of the Act. The assessee voluntarily paid taxes and declared total wealth in the return of wealth tax.
In this situation the assessee cannot not be held to have concealed the particulars of wealth. As regards non inclusion of value of Indica car of ₹ 1,81,772/- in the computation of wealth, we observe that the assessee has disclosed the value of other remaining three cars and the total value of assets excluding the value of Indica Car has been disclosed at ₹ 1,00,58,811/-.
We find merit in the contention of the assessee that due to inadvertence and without having any mensrea of evading the wealth tax, the assessee failed to include the value of Indica Car in the computation of wealth and for such un intentional error the assessee should not be visited with penalty.
Both the lower authorities were not justified in confirming the penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- u/s 18(1)(c) - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (8) TMI 994 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Valuation of net wealth - unaccounted wealth on account of seized hundis - ITAT reduced the value of seized hundies by 25% while rejecting the appellant's contention that, it should be valued at ₹ 6,20,000/- - Held that:- the value of asset for the purposes of this Act is to be determined strictly in terms of the provisions of this Section and not by any other mode. Rule 14 of Schedule-III of the Wealth Tax Act provides that the value of any asset in its books should be taken as the value for wealth tax purposes. In the case in hand, the Wealth Tax Officer, CWT (Appeals), as well as, the Tribunal has not done the aforesaid exercise, but instead adopted value of such inchoate instruments as found in the proceedings under the Income-Tax Act.
In our view, the mode adopted to determine the value of the Bills of Exchange/hundis by the authorities under the Wealth Tax Act, as well as, by the Tribunal was contrary to the provisions of Section 7 of the Wealth-Tax Act. - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2018 (8) TMI 156 - SC ORDER
Properties/assets chargeable to tax as claimed under the WT Act - Understanding of the AO to bring certain transaction within the purview of the WT Act - notice u/s 17 issued to the assessee reopening the wealth tax assessment - Held that:- SLP dismissed.
-
2018 (8) TMI 141 - SC ORDER
Royal Buggy - art work - whether the Royal Buggy in question was not exempted under section 5 (1) (xii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, because, it was covered under the first proviso to clause (viii) of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the said Act? - Held that:- SLP dismissed
............
|
