|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 3697 Records
-
2018 (3) TMI 1364 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Wealth tax assessment - whether loose pearls and stones are also includible in the definition of assets? - Held that:- As per the definition of jewellery in the Wealth Tax Act jewellery includes precious stones and semi-precious stones including the loose items not embedded in jewellery. CIT(A) examined the definition of the gemstones in internet and held that loose pearls and stones are also includible in the definition of assets. AR submitted that the pearls are not stones but separate bifurcation of pearls and stones was not submitted. A.R did not place any decision to controvert the finding of the Ld.CIT(A).
As per the definition available in internet precious stones are diamond ruby emeralds and rest of them are semi-precious stones which include variants from non-organic stones. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the addition made by the A.O and we do not see any reason to interfere in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (3) TMI 814 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Wealth tax assessment - ITAT directing the AO to disregard the recent valuation report and adopt old valuation report - current valuation of the assets was available with the assessee at the time of filing of Wealth Tax return - Valuation of jewellery - Held that:- A conjoint reading of the Rules require valuation of all assets; furthermore, the valuation operates not on a year to year basis but for a four year cycle. The only exception made out is that where jewellery includes gold or silver or any other alloy, the valuation of gold has to be undertaken annually. Furthermore, if the jewellery or any part of such asset is sold or acquired before valuation date (i.e. within the four year period) such value has to be reduced or increased as the case may be and has to be reflected in the subsequent assessment year.
It is evident from the facts of the present case that the search was an event which per se could not have compelled the assessee to go in for fresh valuation, unless there was a compulsion in law to do so. In these circumstances, the assessees acted within their rights in relying upon the prevailing valuation, which ended on 31.03.2012. - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2018 (3) TMI 813 - ITAT PUNE
Assets taxable under the provision of Wealth Tax Act - addition of the properties in the ‘net wealth’ on the basis of statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - Held that:- The assessee in his statement admitted that investments in the movable and immovable properties listed above are made out of undisclosed income. AR has reiterated the fact that the assessee has financed for purchase of assets in the name of his wife and nephews. It is also an un-rebutted fact that the assessee has disclosed the assets listed above in his block return of income. No reason to disturb the findings of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). The order of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) in confirming the additions is well reasoned and justified. We concur with the same. Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and appeals of assessee are dismissed.
The assessee has filed certain documents as additional evidences to substantiate that the properties added in the ‘net wealth’ of assessee are not registered in his name. AR has failed to give any plausible reason as to why these documents have not been placed before the AO or Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) when they were in possession of assessee at the time of assessment/hearing before First Appellate authority. Additional evidences could not be admitted merely on the asking of appellant. The assessee/appellant has to show reasonable cause for not producing the documents/evidences, (now furnished as additional evidences) before the lower Authorities when the same were available with him. In the absence of any valid reason for not producing these documents before Authorities below, the prayer of assessee for admitting additional evidences is rejected. - Decided against assessee.
-
2018 (3) TMI 595 - ITAT MUMBAI
Penalty invoking Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) of WT act - unaccounted assets / income unearthed in search / survey action - Held that:- The return of wealth tax filed by the assessee got triggered only due to search / survey action carried out by the department wherein unaccounted assets / income was unearthed. The assessee never filed return of wealth for the impugned AY before the search / survey action despite having taxable wealth. Therefore, in our opinion, the said return was not voluntary but only the result of the search / survey action on the part of the revenue. Hence, the reliance of the revenue on Explanation-3 to Section 18(1)(c) and the cited order of the Pune Tribunal was quite appropriate, reasonable and justified. No contrary judgment has been placed on record by the assessee. Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the orders of lower authorities in any manner. Resultantly, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.
-
2018 (3) TMI 488 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Addition to net wealth - cash seized from the Assessee and kept in PD account of the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot be considered as 'cash-in-hand' in the hands of the Assessee for computation of his net wealth under Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Held that:- Once it has held that amount deposited in a Bank in PD Account of the Commissioner of Income Tax, is not cash in hand, but cash in bank, then it cannot be added to the net wealth of the Respondent.
Therefore, in view of the Apex Court's decision in KCC Software Ltd. (2008 (1) TMI 12 - Supreme Court of India) the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
-
2018 (3) TMI 86 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax Act provision applicability - question of attracting ‘Deemed Gift’ provision under Section 4(1) of the Gift Tax Act - Given that M/s Dua Engineering Pvt. Ltd. merely held investments in the industrial plot, at a value that was at the book value, the CIT (A) felt that it needed to be treated as an industrial investment company and proceeded to do so. This approach was affirmed by the ITAT - Held that:- In the opinion of this Court both the lower authorities and the AO fell into error in proceeding to apply III Schedule to the Wealth Tax Act (by reason of Rule 11), which is applicable to the investment company, when clearly the findings pointed out to the fact that the necessary pre-conditions of treating M/s Dua Engineering Pvt. Ltd., as an investment company did not exist. If rule was inapplicable, the other mechanism of applying the value of a non-investment company, was to apply. This meant that the book value of the share (Rs.6.86) had to be applied. Therefore, ₹ 10/- value at which the assessee sold her shares to her husband in 1993 could not be treated as inadequate consideration. The findings of the lower authorities are, therefore, in error of law. The question of law is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1878 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Urban land chargeable to wealth tax - Impugned lands are agricultural lands - whether assessee’s case squarely falls within the definition of agricultural land? - whether lands in question are exempted for wealth tax u/s 2(ea)? - HELD THAT:- In this case, neither the Tahsildar nor the AO himself has inspected the land. The land records clearly show that as per the Government records, the lands are agricultural lands. The sale deeds also substantiate that the lands in question were agricultural lands. There is no other evidence brought on record to controvert that the impugned lands were not agricultural lands.
Therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the lower authorities that the lands are non agricultural lands and accordingly hold that the lands are agricultural lands and entitled for exemption u/s 2(ea) of WT Act. Section 2(ea)(b) was amended retrospectively w.e.f. 01.04.1993 as per Finance Act, 2013 as per which the lands on which construction of building is not permissible are excluded from the definition of urban land.
In the instant case, the AO has not brought on record any evidence to show that the lands are converted. Once the lands are not converted as non agricultural lands, construction of building is not permissible. In the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. D.C.M.Ltd. [2005 (2) TMI 97 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the urban land on which construction of building is not permissible and no permission till date had been granted by the appropriate authority, the lands are excluded from the definition of urban land chargeable to wealth tax.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs.E.Udayakumar [2005 (10) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation on which no construction is put up is not chargeable to wealth tax. 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.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1543 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Penalty imposed u/s 18(1)(c) of Wealth Tax Act - furnishing of inaccurate particulars of net wealth - invalid notice - Held that:- Though the CWT(A) has issued the show cause notice stating that the assessee was required to explain the reasons for furnishing inaccurate particulars, concealment of wealth, it was not clearly made known for which offence the assessee is required to submit his explanation. The Ld.CWT(A) should have struck off the irrelevant column and made known the assessee by mentioning for which reason the penalty was initiated. Penalty u/s 18(1)(c) of WT Act are parimateria to Income Tax Act 271(1)(c). As per settled case laws non striking the irrelevant column in the notice issued u/s 18(1)(c) renders the notice invalid and consequent penalty required to be cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 736 - ITAT AHMEDABAD
Determination of net-wealth for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- Sub-section 2 of section 50C provides a remedy to the assessee in case he has aggrieved with adoption of such sale consideration on the basis of deeming provision. He can file a reference to the AO and the AO shall send the reference to the DVO for determining fair market value of the property on the date of transfer. Thus, it cannot be taken as gospel truth.
The assessee has to be given an opportunity to contest this rate. Similarly, report of the DVO is to be supplied to the assessee his comments are to be taken. Only thereafter net wealth could be determined. In the present cases, report of the DVO is still awaited. While dealing with the property no.4, Narol, Ahmedabad the ld.CIT(A) has observed that the AO is directed to adopt value of the property on receipt of report from the DVO if the valuation is more than the value of the property declared and accepted by the AO. Now, how this type of direction can be made without confronting the assessee with report of the DVO ?. We are of the view that ends of justice will be met, if we set aside order of the CWT(A) and restore all these issues to the file of AO. AO shall provide copies of DVO’s report in case those reports are being relied upon by him for determination of net wealth - Appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
-
2018 (2) TMI 63 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Determination of net wealth - correctness of valuation adopted by the AO - Scope of remand by the ITAT to the WTO - Held that:- Remand by the ITAT to the WTO in this case was with respect to the question of valuation. At the stage when the WTO decided on the valuation, the final report of the DVO was not available. In the circumstances, the ITAT remanded the matter only on that aspect. In the circumstances, the findings rendered by the WTO could not have been interfered with by the CWT who entertained the issue of taxability which had been earlier given-up. Para 28 of the ITAT’s order clearly shows that the scope of remand was clearly in respect of valuation. In these given facts, the circumstance that for later years, the Revenue accepted the ITAT’s contentions regarding non-taxability of assets, per se cannot afford a ground for it to insist that the remand made by the ITAT ought to and was enlarged so as to include that ground in the previous order when as a matter of fact they did not agitate it.
ITAT’s impugned order on the first question did not call for interference.
The Court further notices that both the ITAT and the lower appellate authority, i.e. CWT did not address themselves to the issue of valuation which primarily was the subject matter of remand in the first instance. In the circumstances, the matter is remitted for fresh consideration
-
2018 (1) TMI 1250 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Correct fair market value of the property as on the relevant valuation date - value declared by assessee - Held that:- As decided in CIT Vs. Akshay Textiles and Agencies Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (10) TMI 251 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] annual letting value has to be determined on basis of annual rent received by the assessee and not what has been received by its tenants from the ultimate users. The emphasis placed upon expression “rent received or receivables” in explanation (2) to Rule 5 ought not to be given wide interpretation as is sought to be urged. For these reasons, the first question of law framed is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Valuation of the Mercedes Benz Car - whether value of the Mercedes Benz Car could not be included in the net wealth of the Assessee? - Held that:- As held on facts that though the Mercedes Car was held by the assessee in his name, it was in fact funded and maintained by his Foreign Principal, on whose behalf it was held by him. The foreign principal did not have any office or branch in India. The ITAT had taken note of all these facts and vide it its order dated 5.11.2011 for a previous year deleted a similar inclusion of the value of the car. This reasoning persuaded the ITAT in the facts of the present case for the current Assessment Year to direct the deletion of such value. Being concurrent findings of facts and having regard to the circumstances that the car was funded by the assessee’s foreign principal and apparently also maintained on its behalf, the question of law is answered in favour of the assessee
-
2018 (1) TMI 720 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - yeast - whether the yeast cleared in pack from the factory appearing a marking for industrial use only and specially made for bakery industry only will be assessable under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Held that: - for the product which are exempted under Rule 34 of the provisions of Standard of Weights and Measures (Packaged commodities) Rules, 1977, there is no need to affix the MRP on the product.
In the facts of the present case, the appellant is exempted from affixing MRP under Rule 34 of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. Consequently, they are not required to affix the MRP, as per the provisions of Standards of Weights and Measures, Act 1976. Accordingly, the valuation of the goods in question cannot be governed by Section 4A. Whereas it is governed by Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Appeal allowed.
-
2018 (1) TMI 34 - ITAT BANGALORE
Wealth tax assessment - treatment to agricultural land - Held that:- Agricultural land on its conversion for nonagricultural purposes ceased to be an agricultural land. Therefore, it becomes an asset for the purposes of Wealth-tax Act. See Shri. A.N. Manidatta (HUF) , Versus Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Circle -2 (2) (1) , Bengaluru [2017 (3) TMI 1603 - ITAT BANGALORE]
-
2018 (1) TMI 17 - ITAT MUMBAI
Disallowance of claim for deduction of debts incurred in relation to the taxable assets from gross wealth - Held that:- Admittedly, the assessee is engaged in hire purchase and leasing the vehicles. “Proportionate basis” for determination of the debt can be adopted if multiple assets were brought under wealth tax. In the computation of wealth, the assessee has declared value of own vehicles as well as value of leased vehicles and no other assets exist or compounded with any other assets so as to find difficult to determine the debt on proportionate basis. Thus, adoption of proportionate basis for determination of the debts does not arise in this case as rightly held by the ld. CIT(A).
We find no fault if the assessee has borrowed the funds for acquiring capital assets, which is exactly, nothing but leased vehicles. However, the assessee has not brought on record and cogent evidences as to whether the borrowed funds were utilized for leased vehicles. From the above, the stated fact is that the assessee has, initially, acquired leased vehicles and thereafter borrowed funds from Banks and utilized. To accept the above contention of the assessee, the assessee is required to file complete details of acquisition of leased vehicles, utilization of borrowed funds for both the assessment years before the Assessing Officer and accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the details as may be filed and decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after allowing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1267 - ITAT HYDERABAD
Wealth tax assessment reopened u/s. 17 - assessing the value of 10 acres of land - AO adopted the taxable wealth at ₹ 3.35 Crores based on the adoption of market value for the 10 acres of land stated to be in the ownership of assessee as per the agreement of sale - Held that:- It is interesting to note that assessee has entered into an agreement of sale with the said persons for sale of 10 acres of land on his own. In that agreement, in para 1 of the recitals, it was clearly stated that ‘The Vendor hereto being the sole legal heir of the said original owner Sri G. Bharat Reddy inherited and succeeded the Schedule Property as absolute owner and possessor thereof in perpetuity in evidence of which the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WP No. 18422 of 2006 by its order dt. 11-09-2006 directed the District Collector, RR district and MRO Balanagar to issue Pattedar Pass books and title deeds……………..’
The fact is that there is no such order by the Hon'ble High Court and the copy of Hon'ble High Court placed on record do indicate that writ petition was dismissed with a direction to appropriate authorities to pass necessary orders on the application of petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The report of the Dy. Collector do indicate that the claim of assessee is not correct and the land is shown as Government land and in fact, was allotted to various other persons by the Government. Therefore, the very ownership of the land is in dispute. Since similar issue in Income tax proceedings was restored to the file of AO for examination in the Revenue appeal, we are of the opinion that this matter also should be restored to the file of AO to examine the facts afresh and decide the wealth tax liability, after giving due opportunity to assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1011 - ITAT DELHI
Wealth tax assessment - valuation of properties - Held that:- AO was compelled to estimate the values of properties as indicated above and assessed the net wealth of the assessee at ₹ 2,68,77.200/- as against ₹ 76,75,209/- on estimate basis vide his order dated 31.12.2009. After hearing both the parties and perusing the records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities, we are of the view that the AO has given full opportunity to the assessee for substantiating its claim before him, but the assessee has not produced any evidence with respect to his contention relating to adoption of value of properties for Wealth Tax purposes and even before the Ld. CIT(A) and also before us. However, keeping in view of the tax effect involved in the case, being old matter and in the interest of justice, we are inclined to not set aside the issue in dispute to the AO and giving liberty to assessee to produce the evidence for its claim. But in the interest of justice, we think it proper to make reasonable estimate of properties too.
-
2017 (12) TMI 480 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Treatment of asset as stock in trade - Held that:- The assessee has purchased urban vacant land located at Banjara Hills and entered in to development agreement with Vulcon Project Developers Pvt. Ltd for development of the land but no development took place till the date of valuation date. The assessee declared the asset in the balance sheet as a fixed asset and no supporting evidence was placed by the assessee with regard to the claim of the assessee as stock in trade. The property was not converted as a business asset in the relevant period. On identical facts in the case of Devineni Avinash for the A.Y.2009-10, the coordinate Bench [2016 (7) TMI 422 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM ] held that the asset is an investment but not stock in trade.
Litigation on the property before the Hon’ble Civil Court with an injunction order to maintain status quo till further orders - Held that:- The land in question cannot be excluded from the definition of asset from the definition of section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act and CWT(A) has rightly directed the AO to hold that the same required to be brought to Wealth Tax purpose. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the CWT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the assessee on this ground.
-
2017 (12) TMI 479 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM
Market value of immovable property - adoption of the value determined by the Departmental Valuation cell - Held that:- There is a search in the case of the assessee and subsequently it is found that there are some immovable properties and the assessee has to file a wealth tax return, which he was not filed. The A.O. has issued a notice, accordingly, assessee filed the wealth tax return and declared immovable properties as per the books of accounts. The A.O. has referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation cell to ascertain the market value of the immovable properties, however, the A.O. has not received the report of the Departmental valuation cell, and therefore, he has completed the assessment with a rider that assessment will be revised after report received from the departmental valuation cell.
Subsequently, the Ld. Commissioner passed an order u/s 25(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, directing the assessing officer to adopt the value determined by the Departmental Valuation cell and complete the assessment. We find that the above order passed by the Ld. Commissioner is not correct and not justified. It needs modification. In view of the above, "we direct the A.O. to issue one copy of the report of the Departmental Valuation Cell to the assessee and if any objections raised by the assessee, the same may be considered and complete the assessment in accordance with law” - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.
-
2017 (12) TMI 478 - ITAT DELHI
Penalty levied - not furnished the return within time of sub-section (1) of section 14 - difference between filing of return within the time stipulated u/s 14(1) of the Act or filing the same with any delay - Held that:- It is only basing on the revised assessment, the assessment was completed. Only reason stated by the AO for initiation of penalty was that no revision could be made incase of belated filing of the original return of wealth. Though it is argued by the Ld. DR that the belated return as well as the revised return both are nonest in the eye of the law. We find it difficult to agree with him inasmuch as it is only on the basis of the revised return of wealth, the assessment took place. We also do not find any support of law to the observations of the AO that the belated return is nonest in the eye of law as such it cannot be revised thereby rendering the revised return of wealth as void ab initio.
The observations of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax are perfectly justified and the case of the assessee is squarely falls within the ambit of Section 15 of the Act as such it does not give rise to any penalty proceedings. With this view of the matter, we uphold the findings of the Commissioner of Wealth tax and found it difficult to sustain the penalty levied by the AO. We, therefore, direct the AO to delete the penalty - Decided against revenue
-
2017 (12) TMI 262 - ITAT PUNE
Assessment of wealth including agricultural land - Addition made in the context of retrospective amended Explanation-1 to section (ea) of the Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- The Wealth Tax Act, 1957 defines the “assets” in clauses (e) and (ea) of section 2. The assets include the ‘urban land’ as per subclauses (i) to (v) of section 2(ea). the highlighted portion above excludes two types of land from the definition of ‘urban land’. (1) The lands need to be classified in the Government records as an Agricultural land and the same should have been used for agricultural purposes. Thus, these twin conditions are required to be fulfilled by the assessee for claim of exclusion from the definition of an ‘urban land’.
The second type of land for exclusion from the definition of ‘urban land’ relates to the land on which no construction of a building was permissible under any law for the time being in force. Such lands are also allowed for claim of exclusion from the definition of ‘urban land’.
The present issue for adjudication before us relates to the first type of land which deals with the twin conditions of classification of a land as an agricultural land in the Government records and use of the said land for agricultural purposes. Considering all, we are of the opinion that the order of CWT(A) is required to be reversed for both the years. Therefore, considering the principles of natural justice and also the issues of fairness, we remand this issue to the file of the CWT(A) for fresh adjudication in the matter. CWT(A) shall grant reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee in accordance with the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes. Appeals of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
............
|
