|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 3697 Records
-
2018 (8) TMI 139 - 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.
-
2018 (7) TMI 836 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Agricultural land used for agricultural purposes as held as a capital asset for the purpose of Wealth tax Act - Held that:- On the similar facts, the coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case laws in the case of Devineni Lakshmi Vs. WTO Ward-2(3) [2018 (4) TMI 279 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] dismissed the appeal of the revenue holding that on agricultural land, no construction is permissible as per existing laws unless the agricultural land is converted into non-agricultural land.
Since facts of the assessee’s case are identical, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal (supra), we hold that agricultural land used for agricultural purposes cannot be held as a capital asset for the purpose of Wealth tax Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
-
2018 (7) TMI 592 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Wealth tax assessment - Whether a land in which construction is being carried on could be excluded from the definition of “urban land” and thus from the definition of “assets” as available in Section 2(ea) of the WT Act - Held that:- The issue is one covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Giridhar G.Yadalam v. CWT [2016 (1) TMI 826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] as found that only a land in which the building is completely constructed stands excluded under the exclusionary provision under Explanation (1)(b)(ii) of Section 2(ea).
Respectfully following the aforesaid decision, we set aside the orders of the Tribunal and affirm the order of the Assessing Officer. The Wealth Tax Appeals would stand allowed, answering the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, there is question of valuation which has to be considered by the Tribunal, which the Tribunal did not consider. Hence, to decide on the quantum, the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal
-
2018 (7) TMI 591 - ITAT BANGALORE
Maintainability of appeal - tax effect of appeal - Held that:- Instruction No.1979 dated 6.1.2005 as modified by Instruction No.1985 dated 29.6.2000 and Instruction No. 2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 would apply to filing of appeals under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 as the CBDT Circular No.21/2015 is one issued u/s.268A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and therefore cannot supersede a Circular which was applicable to filing of appeals under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 viz., Instruction No.1979 dated 27.3.2000 as modified by Instruction No.1985 dated 29.6.2000 and Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005.
Therefore the monetary limit of ₹ 2 lacs for filing appeals under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 before the Tribunal as laid down in Instruction No.2/2005 dated 24.10.2005 will be applicable for appeals filed after 24.10.2005. In that view of the matter the monetary limit for filing appeals by the Revenue are not satisfied and therefore the appeals by the revenue are not maintainable as they have contrary to the Board’s instructions. The appeals are therefore liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.
-
2018 (7) TMI 144 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Wealth tax assessment - Agriculture Land / stock-in-trade - AO brought the same to section 2(ea)(b) of the Wealth Tax Act on the ground that the land was converted into non-agricultural land - Held that:- CWT(A) himself accepted that the land has already been converted into non-agricultural and the same has shown as stock-in-trade. Once assessee has treated the land which is in dispute is stock-in-trade, it has to be treated as business asset. Simply because assessee is not offered income from real estate, nature of the asset cannot be changed. Therefore, we allow this ground of appeal raised by the assessee.
House site at Tenali to the extent of 1400 sq.ft. - Held that:- he assessee has valued the property at ₹ 11.50 lakhs. The Assessing Officer has adopted the market value, based on the SRO’s value of ₹ 34,02,000/-. On appeal, ld. CWT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Before us, the assessee has not brought any material on record to show that why SRO value adopted by the Assessing Officer is not correct. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. CWT(A). Ground of appeal raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Land to the extent of 2.08 acres at Kalakkal, Medak District - assessee claimed it as an agricultural land and sought exemption - Held that:- In this case, Assessing Officer has not examined whether the land is an agricultural land or not. The assessee also failed to produce the relevant material before the Assessing Officer in this regard. Insofar as non-conversion of agricultural land is concerned, this aspect is not considered by the Assessing Officer. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the entire issue involved in this appeal has to be re-examined after considering the relevant material. Therefore, we set aside the order passed by the ld.CWT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate this again
Flat situated at Chandanagar - Market value assessment - assessee contended before the Assessing Officer that the said flat was let out for 300 days and the same is exempt under section 5 & 6 of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- CWT(A) scaled down the market value of rent at 5,000/- per sq.yard in relation to structure and directed the Assessing Officer to value the same at ₹ 14,40,000/-. Both the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) have not considered the submissions made by the assessee with regard to exemption claimed under section 5 & 6 of the Wealth Tax Act. The assessee contends that once the property was let out for more than 300 days, the Revenue without examining the fact, brought to tax the value of the asset. Therefore, we deem it fit to send the issue back to the file of the Assessing Officer to verify the facts
-
2018 (6) TMI 1333 - ITAT DELHI
Lamborghini Car for computation of wealth tax liability - ownership of the Lamborghini car was not with the assessee, therefore, the assessee was not entitled to any depreciation thereon - Held that:- CWT (Appeals) has also noted that the assessee’s appeal before the ITAT was decided in assessee’s favour. Thus, there appears to be a contradiction in the finding recorded by the Ld. CWT (A). The Ld. AR also could not shed any light on the issue. This aforementioned order of the ITAT has not been placed before us by either of the parties and nor have any supporting documents been filed by the assessee so as to enable us to appreciate the issue in right perspective. Although we are inclined to dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of active participation in the appellate proceedings before us, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to restore the file to the office of the Ld. CWT (A) to be adjudicated de novo after giving due opportunity to the assessee to present its case
-
2018 (6) TMI 1332 - ITAT PUNE
Non appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - legitimate reason for non-appearance - Held that:- Shri Fazal Muhhammad Ibrahim Khan had died during the pendency of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee/appellant is legal heir of Shri Fazal Muhhammad Ibrahim Khan and is now representing the deceased. On account of death of Shri Fazal Muhhammad Ibrahim Khan, the assessee could not appear in the other appeal as well before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
In view of the statement made by ld. AR we are of considered opinion that there was legitimate reason for non-appearance of assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Without going into the merits of the appeals, we are restoring these appeals to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the grounds afresh after considering the orders of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) in assessee’s case for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1331 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Wealth escaped assessment - whether department should not have assessed the capital gains for AY. 2007-08 on the reason that possession was handed over on 01-04-2006 - Held that:- We are of the opinion that the order of AO and CIT(A) cannot be sustained. It was the contention of the AO in Income Tax proceedings that assessee had indeed handed over the possession of the property as on 01-04-2006, which led to assessing the capital gains arising on the transfer of that property in AY. 2007-08. Therefore, as on 31-03-2007, the property was no longer in the possession or ownership of assessee.
Moreover, if the property is deemed to be in assessee’s ownership, then, the money received towards sale would have to be considered as liability on the date of valuation. There cannot be a Wealth Tax arising in this transaction. The orders of AO and CIT(A) are against the principles of law and facts of the case. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in setting aside the orders by allowing the grounds of assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1288 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Determination of net wealth liable to be taxed - Deduction in respect of loan availed by the assessee - Admission of additional evidence in respect of property at Banjara Hills, Hyderabad - Held that:- During the appeal hearing, the assessee furnished evidence before the CWT(A), relating to housing loan availed by her from ICICI Home Finance Ltd. The same was not made available to the AO. In fact, the assessee had not responded to the notices issued by the AO during the assessment proceedings. The evidence which was furnished before the CWT(A) first time for allowing the deduction and the Ld.CWT(A) has not called for the remand. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the issue should be remitted back to the file of the AO to consider the deduction in respect of loan availed by the assessee relating to the Banjara Hills property
-
2018 (6) TMI 1287 - ITAT PUNE
Maintainability of appeal - orders passed under section 55A r.w.s. 16A(5) of the Wealth-tax Act - assessee had transferred his ancestral agricultural land and declared income from Long Term Capital Gain - appeal filed by the assessee against the order of AVO in estimating the value of property as on 01.04.1981 - Held that:- The said valuation report was called for by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) during the pendency of quantum Income Tax proceedings and applying the said valuation, the income has been computed under the head income from capital gains. The quantum appeals are filed before the Tribunal by the assessee independently.
The present appeals filed by the assessee against order of AVO in determining the value of property under section 55A of the Act, are not maintainable and hence, the same are dismissed. Since, the appeals are not maintainable then mentioning the same as Wealth Tax Appeals does not affect the maintainability of the appeals. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (6) TMI 1203 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) - reopening u/s. 17 - deliberately concealed the particulars of wealth - Held that:- As seen from the satisfaction recorded and the order of the AO, there is no information with AO about the wealth of assessee. It was only when AO made roving enquiries about assets held, assessee disclosed the jewellery received on gift at the time of her marriage (20-05-2003).
The explanation given was that she is not aware about the wealth tax liability on that jewellery to be accepted as bonafide, as she has no other assets either immovable or movable, as can be seen from the computations filed. Even though the proceedings were initiated and finalized u/s. 17 in AY. 2005-06 and AY. 2006-07, no penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) was levied by the AO. Thus, the reopening u/s. 17 has no relevance for levy of penalty. As the explanation was bonafide, this being first year of wealth tax in her case, we are of the opinion that the facts do not warrant penalty u/s. 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (6) TMI 907 - ITAT KOLKATA
Proceedings u/s 23 of the Wealth Tax Act - Asset for the purpose of wealth tax - Commercial complex - whether it is an asset? - 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:- As decided in M/S. NAVIN VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VERSUS A.C.W.T., CC-IV, KOLKATA [2016 (10) TMI 278 - ITAT KOLKATA] wealth tax is not levied on productive assets - The subject mentioned property is a commercial complex and is a productive asset deriving rental income p.a. It is well settled from the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance No. 2, 1998 under the head "incentives proposed under the wealth tax act" that wealth tax is not to be levied on productive assets.
Hence we hold that the subject mentioned property shall be exempt u/s 2(ea)(v) of the Act and therefore outside the ambit of taxable wealth.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1705 - ITAT CHENNAI
Assessment of wealth tax - assessee claims that Thiruvanmiyur property can be taken as self-occupied and the Kodaikanal property can be assessed for wealth-tax - Held that:- When the assessee resided at Thiruvanmiyur house and used the premises for his medical profession, it has to be construed as if the property was residential one and self-occupied. Therefore, the Thiruvanmiyur property is exempted from wealth-tax.
Coming to the Kodaikanal property, the Ld. Sr. counsel very fairly submitted that it can be subject matter of wealth-tax assessment. Therefore, the Assessing Officer may assess the value of Kodaikanal property for wealth-tax, after valuing the property as per the procedure prescribed in Wealth-tax Act as on the valuation date.
-
2018 (5) TMI 1495 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Deletion of addition made by AO - the land being chargeable to Wealth Tax was added in the total wealth of the assessee - Held that: - the AO has treated the land shown by the assessee in its balance sheet as taxable wealth, whereas, the assessee claimed that the building was under construction on such land therefore, the same cannot be treated as taxable wealth under the Wealth Tax Act.
In the case on hand, the building under construction has been shown on such land as capital work-in-progress and this fact has not been disputed by the lower authorities. Therefore, the land on which building is under construction seized from the chargeability of Wealth Tax under the Wealth Tax Law.
When divergent views are expressed by different judicial forums, we prefer to follow the views expressed by the Courts which are in favor of the assessee - Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of CIT v. Vegetables Products Ltd. [1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible then that construction which favors the assessee must be adopted.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (5) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Determining the market value of the property under wealth Tax - whether only actual rent received should be taken without including the charges collected separately towards service and maintenance? - whether amenities do not form part of the rent for the purpose of valuing the property under Wealth Tax Act? - Held that:- On a perusal of the materials placed before this Court, we are prima facie satisfied that both the Appellate Authority as well as the ITAT have gone by the orders in the assessee's own case for the earlier AY 1984-1985 and 1985-86, where, the present re-framed substantial questions of law were not the issue in those years. For such reasons, we are convinced that the matter should be remanded to the CWT (A) for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
Tax Case Appeal is allowed, the impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the CWT (A) for fresh consideration to decide the following two issues along with the facts and circumstances of the case after notice to the assessee:-
i) Whether for the purpose of determining the market value of the property under wealth Tax only actual rent received should be taken without including the charges collected separately towards service and maintenance?
ii) Whether amenities do not form part of the rent for the purpose of valuing the property under Wealth Tax Act?
-
2018 (4) TMI 1560 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Exemption claimed by the assessee u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act - land is an urban land - revenue’s case is that the assessee was allotted 600 sq.yards of site which works out to 502 sq.meters and as per proviso to section 5(vi) of Wealth Tax Act, only 500 sq.meters is entitled for exemption u/s 5(vi), hence the assessee is not entitled for exemption - assessee’s case is that as per the sale deed document, the impugned property of 600 sq.yards works out to 500 sq.meters but not 502 sq.meters
Held that:- DR could not controvert the findings given by the CWT(A) stating that the impugned land was less than 500 sq.meters. The surveyor report establishes that the impugned land was 594.77 sq.yards which is equivalent to 497.30 sq.meters. In the immediately preceding assessment year, the AO did not make any addition with regard to the value of the property at Yousufguda. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CWT(A) and the same is upheld. This issue is involved for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed for both the assessment years. Appeals of the revenue are dismissed.
-
2018 (4) TMI 411 - ITAT KOLKATA
Treating value of freehold land as a taxable asset u/s 2(ea) - whether the freehold land held by the assessee as vacant as on the valuation date i.e. 31.3.2009 , on which the construction has been started for setting up of its office and service centre, could be stated to be used for ‘industrial purposes’, so as to fall within the ambit of definition of ‘urban land’ and consequential exemption from levy of wealth tax? - Held that:- The expression ‘industrial purpose’ should mean , in our considered opinion, as applicable to all industries that are engaged in manufacturing as well as servicing activities. Admittedly the assessee herein is engaged in service activity. Hence we are afraid to give a restricted meaning to the expression ‘industrial purposes’ used in exception to definition of urban land in wealth tax act. On the contrary, we hold that the expression ‘industrial purpose’ has been loosely used and hence need to be given a wider import so as bring even the service industry within its meaning.
The assets deployed for service activities are treated as productive assets and accordingly the construction / set up of office and service center by the assessee and used as such for its business purposes would be outside the ambit of wealth tax in the same manner in which the factory structure or manufacturing establishment is excluded and the beneath land on which such structure to come should have the same wealth tax treatment.
The assessee had used the land only for its business purposes by constructing a building in the subject mentioned land and is carrying on its regular business from the said premises. Hence we hold that the land was used by the assessee only for its business purposes. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (4) TMI 279 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Valuation of vacant land at Shaikpet Village - assessee have claimed the property as exempt under section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act on the ground that the asset is stock-in-trade - Held that:- On identical facts in the case of Shri Devineni Avinash, the same issue has come up before this Tribunal [2017 (12) TMI 480 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] as held that the impugned asset is not stock-in-trade as claimed by the assessee
The asset is not a commercial asset and not exempt u/s 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act and accordingly we uphold the orders of the CWT(A) and dismiss the appeals of the assessee.
-
2018 (4) TMI 207 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of Section 40(3) of Wealth Tax Act - as submitted that Section 40(3) is unconstitutional as it brings to tax all lands and buildings (to the extent not used for the purposes of the business) owned by a company in which public are not substantially interested, as it has no relation to the object of the Act - Held that:- Section 40(3) of the Act bringing to tax land and building which is not used for business purposes by companies in which public are not substantially interested to tax under the Wealth Tax Act and leaving out those land and buildings which are used for business purposes by companies in which public are not substantially interested from the charge of wealth tax under the Act is a reasonable classification. Therefore, the legislation bringing to tax land and buildings owned by the companies in which public are not substantially interested without any reference to the manner in which such companies came into ownership of the land and buildings is a decision taken by the legislature and cannot be faulted on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India
Parliament made a reasonable classification between the companies in which public are substantially interested from the companies in which public are not substantially interested. This classification cannot be found fault with because the petitioners want further classification to have been done by the Parliament. The legislature has in its wisdom decided that the executive should not be burdened with finding out the manner in which the land and buildings has been acquired by the company, to bring it to tax. The mere fact that there is land and building owned by the company and it is not used for the purposes of business is sufficient to hold that these assets to be taken into account under Section 40(3) of the Act for the purposes of wealth tax under the Wealth Tax Act. - Challenge to Section 40(3) of the Act is not sustainable. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 1471 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of interest u/s 17B in respect of the period between the due date and the date of the notice u/s 17 - date of filling Wealth tax return - Held that:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the assessment made for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2008-09 is made for the first time under Section 17, the same is a regular assessment and therefore attracts Section 17B(1) of the Act and not otherwise. Hence the Assessee is liable to pay interest u/s 17B(1) from the due date u/s 14(1) to the date of filing of the return u/s 17.
We reject the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee could not be asked to do the impossible, as the due date for filing of the wealth tax returns expired and the assessee had not filed his return within the due date and there was no provision for the assessee to file his returns beyond the due date and the assessee had to await the issuance of notice u/s17 of the Act and therefore the assessee must be exempted from the levy of interest u/s 17B in respect of the period between the due date and the date of the notice u/s 17 of the Act.
............
|
