|
Advanced Search Options
Wealth-tax - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 3696 Records
-
2019 (8) TMI 3
Dismissal of appeal for not filing the appeals online - HELD THAT:- In the A.Y. 2006-07, the ld. WTC(A) as well as the Tribunal have dealt with each and every properties of the assessee threadbare and during the years under consideration, the additions have been made by the A.O. with respect to the very same properties for which both the ld. WTC(A) and the Tribunal have decided in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the order of the Tribunal, there is no justification for the additions so made by the WTO.
It is also pertinent to mention here that when the ld. WTC(A) found that the appeals have not been filed electronically, he has not given any opportunity to the assessees to file the same, accordingly, there is violation of principles of natural justice more particularly when all the issues were already decided by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and which was clear from the grounds of appeals taken before the ld. WTC(A). Accordingly, we direct the WTO to delete the additions with respect to various properties discussed hereinabove.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1656
Reopening of Wealth tax assessment - whether the piece of land in Pineville held by the assessee was its Stock in Trade, or taxable within the provisions of Wealth Tax Act? - HELD THAT:- AO despite recording the liabilities against the land, failed to appreciate that undoubtedly the land was Stock in Trade of assessee. Furthermore, Explanation 1(b) attached with section 2(ea) of the Act clearly specified that any land held by assessee as ‘Stock in Trade’ for a period of 10 year from the date of acquisition, will not include in the definition of ‘Urban Land’. No contrary fact is brought to our notice despite the fact that the assessee throughout the proceedings taken a firm stand that the land is a forming part of their stock in trade. We are also in agreement with the submissions of the assessee that that as per section 2 (m) of Wealth Tax Act, while determining the Wealth Tax liability of the assessee, the aggregate value of debt owned by the assessee in respect of the asset owned by the assessee have to be reduced from the aggregate value of assets belonging to the assessee.- Decided against revenue.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1200
Reopening of assessment - escapement of wealth - reopening the assessment are based on DVO’s report - HELD THAT:- DVO’s report is not for the year under consideration and secondly, order of Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act was in exercise of power for assessment year 2002-03. We find merit in the plea of assessee that the report of DVO is not for the relevant years which have been reopened under section 17(1) of the Act. In any case, in the reasons recorded reference is made to valuation as on 31.03.2001, whereas the DVO had valued the property upto 31.03.2003.
AO has not applied the last valuation completed in the case of assessee i.e. on 31.03.2003 at ₹ 26.35 crores, but has referred to DVO’s value as on 31.03.2001 at ₹ 16.33 crores, being the basis for reopening the assessment. We find no merit in the exercise of jurisdiction by AO in this regard. It cannot be said that reopening of assessment in the hands of assessee is not based on DVO’s report.
Though reference is made to order of Commissioner under section 25(2) of the Act, but the basis for passing aforesaid order was also DVO’s report, wherein the Assessing Officer had made reference to valuation of asset during the course of assessment proceedings, but no such valuation report was received and on a later date, order of revision was passed by Commissioner.
Applying the ratio laid down in ACIT Vs. Dhariya Construction Company [2010 (2) TMI 612 - SC ORDER] we hold that reasons recorded for reopening the assessment cannot stand as the Assessing Officer had failed to apply his mind to the information collected, if any, and has failed to form a belief vis-à-vis reasons recorded for the relevant assessment years. re-assessment proceedings initiated in the case of assessee are without any basis and the consequent order passed under section 16(3) r.w.s. 17(1) of the Act do not stand - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (6) TMI 1199
Wealth-tax assessment - certain assets can be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee - HELD THAT:- When a non-taxable income by mistake is disclosed in the return of income, the same cannot be assessed to tax.
The asset not belonging to the assessee or asset which are to be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee cannot be brought to the net wealth for the purpose of Wealth-tax Act though the same has been disclosed by the assessee in the return of wealth by mistake.
When the assessee realizes his mistake, certainly the assessee can retract his mistake and raise the contention before the appellate authority that the assets disclosed in the return of net wealth cannot be included in the net wealth for the purpose of wealth-tax assessment. Similar view was held in the case of Raghavan Nair v. ACIT & Anr. [2018 (1) TMI 863 - KERALA HIGH COURT]
We are of the view that the matter needs to be considered by the Wealth-tax Officer. WTO shall examine the documents and come to a conclusion whether the claim of the assessee that certain assets should be excluded from the net wealth of the assessee for the Wealth-tax assessment. For the above said exercise, the entire issues raised in these appeals are restored to the Wealth-tax Officer. The assessee shall co-operative with the Wealth-tax Officer and prove his case whether assets needs to be excluded from the net asset of the assessee for the wealth-tax assessment - Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (6) TMI 937
Wealth tax assessment - revision application filed under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act - whether the properties in question are agricultural lands at the relevant time? - assessee for the first time before this Court, raised such a plea that the lands are agricultural lands without specifically pleading so in the revision application filed under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act - HELD THAT:- In the light of new plea, it is also noticed that learned counsel for writ petitioner fairly submits that the writ petitioner's case pertains to assessment year 2008-09 and subsequently in 2011, the land in question has been converted qua use. This statement is also noticed, which means, post 2011, there will be no claim by the writ petitioner under said Act.
Order - The impugned order made by the first respondent is set aside. Though obvious, it is made clear that impugned order is set aside solely for the purpose of facilitating the authority to hear afresh (in the light of new plea raised by writ petitioner).
First respondent is directed to hear the revision afresh in the light of the additional/new plea which the writ petitioner has raised, i.e., plea that the land in question is agricultural land. It is made clear that all pleas, arguments and questions pertaining to the agricultural land new plea of the writ petitioner are left open to be agitated before the first respondent revisional authority and the revisional authority shall consider the same and decide on the same in accordance with law.
The revisional authority shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the writ petitioner before passing orders afresh. Entire aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2019 (5) TMI 863
Wealth tax assessment - non recording of reason showing escapement of wealth from taxation - admission of additional ground - validity of the original order passed u/s 16(3) in appeal against the order passed u/s 25(2) where the original order passed u/s 16(3) which was was subject to revision - HELD THAT:- As decided by the coordinate bench in the case of Westlife Development [2016 (6) TMI 1208 - ITAT MUMBAI] is in Income Tax matter but the principles laid down squarely applies to the wealth tax matter also as respective section of the assessment, reassessment and revision are similar. In view this, we hold that there is no infirmity in the argument of the AR in challenging the validity of the assessment which is subject to revision.
Now as per the earlier order of the coordinate bench in this appeal on the order sheet it was found that the original records were required to be produced by the department. Such records were produced before us by the CIT- DR. On request to show the reasons recorded for issue of notice u/s 17 based on which the assessment u/s 16(3) was made, CIT DR could not show us such reasons recorded from the records. Order sheet of the assessment proceedings also did not show that any such reasons were recorded by the WTO.
It is apparent that the original order passed u/s 16(3) of the Act read with section 17 of the WTA Act is passed without recording any reason showing escapement of wealth from taxation. In absence of any such reason shown to us, we do not have any other alternative but to quash the order u/s 25(2) of the WT Act passed by Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Consequently, we hold that order passed u/s 25(2) of the Act is invalid and hence quashed.
Accordingly, appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2003-04 is allowed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 797
Lands exigible to Wealth-tax Act - 'urban lands' or 'agricultural lands' - 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 - calculation of the distance of 8 KMs from BBMP limits - HELD THAT:- The assessee has filed a letter from the Anneshwara Gram Panchayat office confirming that the land does not come within the limits of any Corporation or Municipality and confirmation from the office of the Tahsildar, Devarahalli measuring the distance from BBMP limits. Per contra, Revenue's case is that the said lands are situated within BIAPPA which has an authority as per the definition of 'asset' which proposition has been negative by a co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case of M.R.Seetharam [2013 (4) TMI 745 - ITAT BANGALORE] . 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 years 2007-08 and 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, this ground and argument raised by Revenue is dismissed.
The said lands in question are not 'urban lands' but 'agricultural lands' and hence not exigible to wealth-tax.
-
2019 (5) TMI 442
Transit House as assessable under Wealth Tax - whether 'Transit House' fell within the definition of 'Assets', as defined in Section 2 (ea) of the Wealth Tax Act,1957, and was assessable to Wealth Tax or not ? - HELD THAT:- Issue decided in favour of the Assessee by a Coordinate Bench of this Court under the Income Tax Act and also under the Wealth Tax Act.
Under the Income Tax Act in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Carborandum Universal Ltd. (present Assessee) [1997 (10) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and under the Wealth Tax Act in Carborandum Universal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, [2012 (7) TMI 775 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] two different Coordinate Benches of this Court have decided the said issue in favour of the Assessee.
-
2019 (5) TMI 441
Asset within the canopy of section 2(ea) of the W.T. Act - HELD THAT:- Assessee had sold the land with dilapidated structure over it lock, stock and barrel to a third party and earned long term capital gain. In our view, this is not a proper ground for disallowing the claim of the assessee. Admittedly, what was sold during the Assessment Year 2006-07 was land with structure.
When there is a structure on the land and when it is not in dispute that the structure was put to use in the earlier assessment years for manufacturing activity and when what was sold was commercial establishment it cannot be classified as urban land u/s 2(ea) - the land with structures which was used in earlier years for manufacturing, is not an asset within the canopy of section 2(ea) of the W.T. Act. It is in our view continues to be a commercial asset. Thus, we delete the addition made herein for both the assessment years.
-
2019 (5) TMI 440
Wealth Tax Liability - Whether vehicles reflected in the balance sheet are chargeable to wealth tax? - assessee has not filed Wealth Tax Return for the A.Y. 2009-10 hence, the case was reopened - difference finding of statement of wealth chargeable to tax and ultimately net wealth tax liability has been computed by the AO - appellant has not demonstrated that vehicle have been purchased out of loan, and the loan outstanding is more than the value of vehicle? - Since the appellant company has not been able to quantify the debt outstanding against the vehicle, plea of the assessee that the cash credit account has been used to purchase the said vehicle was, therefore, not accepted by the CIT(A) and thus at the time of hearing, the Learned Counsel further prays for the issue to be set aside to the file of the Learned CIT(A) to verify the same afresh - HELD THAT:- It fit and proper to set aside the issue and to restore the same to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the matter as indicated above. We further direct the CIT(A) to consider the relevant record in support of the claim of the assessee which is also part of the record before us and also to take into consideration, the details of the accounts and/or relevant evidences which the assessee may choose to file in support of his claim at the time of hearing of the appeal. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1610
"Asset" for the purpose of levying the wealth-tax - agricultural activity was carried out on the land in question - exemption from wealth-tax - HELD THAT:- In the present case it is noticed that the term "assets" covered under the Wealth-tax Act is defined under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act in the exception to the said section 2(ea), urban land which is classified as agricultural and in the record of the Government and used for agricultural purposes does not came under the category of urban land for the purposes of definition of the assets on which wealth-tax is to be levied. In the present case the revenue record, i. e., khasra, girdwari copy of which is placed at page Nos. 5 to 10 of the assessee's compilation reveals that on the land belonging to the assessee, crop of paddy and wheat were grown, therefore the land in question was used for the purpose of agricultural activity.
Revenue record clearly established that the agricultural activity was carried out on the land in question therefore this was not to be included in the list of the "assets" for levy of the wealth-tax, accordingly we set aside the impugned order and direct the Assessing Officer not to include the urban land on which agricultural activity was carried out by the assessee in the list of "asset" for the purpose of levying the wealth-tax. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1546
Wealth tax assessment - Taxability of flat as rented out for complete financial year - assessee submitted that the flat was let out for more than 300 days in the impugned assessment year and the rental income was admitted on actual basis - HELD THAT:- There was no evidence brought on record by the AO to establish that the flat was let out for less than 300 days or the assessee had under stated the rental income, thus the addition was made purely on suspicion. As per law, the AO is not permitted to make any addition on presumptions and surmises unless there is a material on record to show that the flat was not let out for more than 300 days. In the instant case, there was no evidence, hence, the addition made by the AO is unsustainable, accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.
Reopening of assessment for escapement of wealth tax - vacant land situated at Rajahmundry consisting of one acre of agricultural land - HELD THAT:- On identical facts for the A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 in the assessee’s own case this Tribunal held that the said land is agricultural land and has no application of section 2(ea) of W.T.Act . CWT(A) by considering the pattaadaar pass book, sale deed and balance sheet, gave a categorical finding that the land is an agricultural land and section 2(ea) has no application.
-
2019 (4) TMI 1195
Urban land chargeable to wealth tax - Agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation - Lands in question exempted for wealth tax under section 2(ea) - HELD THAT:- Lands in question are exempted from wealth tax under section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, hence, not chargeable to wealth tax
Agricultural lands situated within the limits of city corporation on which no construction is put up is not chargeable to wealth tax. Therefore, 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. See SRI VEGESNA ANANTHA KOTI RAJU VERSUS DCWT (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION) VISAKHAPATNAM [ [2018 (2) TMI 1878 - ITAT VISAKHAPATNAM] ]
-
2019 (4) TMI 390
Monetary limits for filing of wealth tax appeals - low tax effect - HELD THAT:- In view of extension of circular to wealth tax appeals coming into effect, which is applicable to pending appeals, the present appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal are liable to be dismissed on account of low tax effect. Therefore, without going into merits of the additions made in the hands of assessee, we dismiss the appeals filed by Revenue. The Cross Objections filed by assessee against appeals filed by the Revenue have thus become infructuous and are dismissed accordingly.
Before parting, we clarify here that the Revenue shall be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for restoration of appeals with the requisite material to show that the appeals are protected by the exceptions prescribed in Para 10 of the Circular No. 3/2018 (supra) or for any other tenable reason. In the result, appeals by the Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are dismissed.
-
2019 (3) TMI 658
Inheritance of property - Held that:- The facts and circumstances of the present appeal are identical to the facts in H.H. BHAWANI SINGH (INDIVIDUAL) , VERSUS ASST. COMMISSIONER OF WT, NEW DELHI [2011 (2) TMI 1560 - ITAT DELHI], where The Tribunal has restored the matter to the file of the first appellate authority.
We set aside the issue to the file of the learned first appellate authority for fresh adjudication in accordance with the order of the Tribunal - the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2019 (3) TMI 296
Maintainability of appeal - monetary limit - existence of substantial question of law - whether the appeal has to be considered on merits without being hindered by the monetary limits if it involves a substantial question of law of importance and such question arises repeatedly? - HELD THAT:- the question of law has now been settled by the Honourable Supreme Court [2016 (1) TMI 826 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]. Repeated instances of such question of law arising does not arise at all, since the Wealth Tax Act is no more in force.
The extant litigation policy which restrains the Department from taking up any appeal under Section 260A; if the demand is less than Rupees Fifty Lakhs. Considering the overall circumstances of the assessee having expired in the year 2010, the refund orders as per the order of the Tribunal having been issued, and also that the monetary limit is less than that prescribed under Annexure-D circular, we are of the opinion that though the question of law has to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, there need be no recovery steps taken for reason of the appeals being below the monetary limit at the time of filing of the appeals itself. These appeals are hence closed with the above observations
-
2019 (3) TMI 172
Maintainability of wealth tax appeal - monetary limit - HELD THAT:- The CBDT vide earlier Circular No.3/2018, dated 11.07.2018 had prescribed the monetary limits for filing of appeals by the Department before the Appellate Tribunal, High Courts and SLPs/appeals before Supreme Court.
As per para 11 of said circular, it was specified that monetary limit in para 3 shall not apply to writ matters and direct matters other than income tax and filing of appeals in such cases shall continue to be governed by relevant provisions of Statute and rules. However, vide circular No.5/2019, dated 05.02.2019, the CBDT has recognized vide para 2 that there is no charge under Wealth Tax Act, 1957 w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and hence as a step towards litigation management, the Board has decided that monetary limits for filing of appeals in income tax cases as prescribed in para 3 of the circular shall also apply to wealth tax appeals.
In view of extension of circular to wealth tax appeals coming into effect, which is applicable to pending appeals, then the present appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal because of low tax effect, merits to be dismissed in toto.
-
2019 (2) TMI 838
Reopening of wealth tax assessment - cash in hand appearing in balance sheet - Held that:- The assessee is a proprietary concern. The cash balance generated out of trading activity is treated as business asset and as such, business asset was not to be treated as cash in hand within the meaning of section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. In our considered opinion, we hold that cash in hand referred to in section 2(ea)(vi) 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. Admittedly, the impugned cash in hand represents the cash belonging to business of the assessee and thereby partakes the character of business asset. Therefore, in our considered opinion, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In respect of property No. B-21/11 Gitanjali, New Delhi, it was an urban land and the construction was not allowed due to the illegal construction made by other co-owners. The AR of the assessee was unable to substantiate with cogent documentary evidence that the said property was being used for godown. The sanction plan was rejected because of the failure of MCD byelaws. If the assessee or the co-owner would have removed the encroachment or illegal construction of the property, the plan would have been sanctioned in favour of the assessee. Therefore, the plea of the assessee that construction is not permitted in the impugned plot is not tenable and rejected. No any evidence is placed before us to substantiate that the said property was being used for commercial purpose. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee has rightly given relief to the assessee to the extent of loan taken from Allahabad Bank against this property. This ground is rejected.
In respect of property No. C-5/34, SDA, New Delhi, it is evident from record that the property was purchased as per sale deed dated 20.03.2006 from Ashok Kumar Jain who had purchased it from late Mr. Anil Roy Chowdhary. The assessee submitted a bill issued by Royal Security Services (PB-42). The period of services is only for 22.03.2006 to 31.03.2006, but no any proof of payment made to this security services is produced. The case is for F.Y. 2005-06. Therefore, the contention of the assessee that the impugned property was being used for the purpose of business is not acceptable. The title deed of the property is in the name of assessee and there is no adverse order againt the assessee to dispute the title of the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has rightly decided this issue against the assessee.
-
2019 (2) TMI 199
Validity of Wealth Tax Assessments - section 25 (2) of Wealth Tax Act - whether inquires were carried out by the ld. WTO, during the course of the assessments? - Held that:- When a ld. WTO, who is having a duty to do a Wealth Tax assessment after conducting enquiry which are required of him, in discharge of his duties, does not do so, there is a clear non application of mind. Merely because details were filed by assessee or claim was made through a return would not make it a case, where necessary enquiries required under the Act were carried out - thus, there was indeed a lack of enquiry on the aspect of cash balance held by the respective assessees and such lack of enquiry rendered the Wealth Tax Assessments erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. Ld PCWT was justified in holding so.
There are no reasons to interfere with the orders of the ld. PCWT(A) - the appeals of the assessee are dismissed.
-
2019 (1) TMI 1295
Addition by WTO on account of land u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act - asset under the Wealth Tax Act for the purpose of levy of Wealth Tax - urban land would exclude land on which construction of a building is not permissible - Held that:- The provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act are similar to provisions contained under the Delhi Land Reforms Act which provides that the agricultural land could be used only for agricultural purposes otherwise the Bhumidhar or an Asami shall be liable for ejectment from agricultural land.
In the sale deeds in questions filed on record, it is nowhere mentioned, if there was any violation by the owner of the agricultural land for raising any construction thereon. The issue is, therefore, covered in favour of the assessee by judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of M.R. Raghuram [2013 (7) TMI 1116 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT]. It may also be noted here that no evidence has been brought on record that the land in question was not used for agricultural purposes. Thus, the case of the assessee would fall within the exception to the Rule and as such, the same could not be considered as an asset under the Wealth Tax Act for the purpose of levy of Wealth Tax on the same. We, accordingly, set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the additions. - Decided in favour of assessee.
........
|
