Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1966 1966 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 61 of 61 Records

• 1966 (1) TMI 1
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the value of the land surrounding the buildings in valuing the properties Nos. 1 and 2.
  2. Whether an asset such as land acquires value only when there is an intention to sell.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Ignoring the Value of the Land Surrounding the Buildings:
  The Tribunal's decision to ignore the value of the land surrounding the buildings in valuing properties Nos. 1 and 2 was contested. The Wealth-tax Officer initially valued the properties based on the site area and construction cost, leading to a higher valuation. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner later revised this approach, using the annual letting value for valuation. The Tribunal upheld this method, stating that the land surrounding the bungalow, which was not productive, could not be notionally valued just for the sake of wealth-tax. The Tribunal emphasized that the value of the property should be based on the rent recoverable and not on potential market value unless there is an intention to sell.
  
  The Court supported the Tribunal's approach, noting that the valuation of assets for wealth-tax purposes should be based on their market value as per Section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Court clarified that the market value should be determined based on the price the asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. The Court rejected the notion that an asset's market value is influenced by the owner's intention to sell, stating that such a view would defeat the provisions of the Act.
  
  The Court further elaborated that the power conferred on the Wealth-tax Officer under Section 7 of the Act is a judicial power and must be exercised in a judicial manner. The method adopted by the Tribunal, which capitalized the annual rent by a certain number of years' purchase, was deemed appropriate. The Court cited precedents where the valuation of buildings with compounds was based on the capitalized annual rental value, considering the restrictions imposed by rent control laws.
  
  2. Value of Land and Intention to Sell:
  The Tribunal's view that an asset such as land acquires value only when there is an intention to sell was challenged. The Court unequivocally rejected this view, stating that the value of an asset must be determined based on its market value, regardless of the owner's intention to sell. The Court emphasized that the market value is the price the asset would fetch in the open market on the valuation date, as per Section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act.
  
  The Court highlighted that the Tribunal's interpretation would lead to a scenario where assets other than cash would not be subject to tax until they are put on the market for sale, which would undermine the Act's provisions. The Court affirmed that an asset's market value is not contingent on the owner's intention to sell and answered the second question in the negative.
  
  Conclusion:
  The Court concluded that the Tribunal was justified in ignoring the value of the land surrounding the buildings in valuing the properties Nos. 1 and 2. The Tribunal's approach of using the rental basis for valuation was deemed appropriate and in accordance with the law. The Court also clarified that an asset such as land does not acquire value only when there is an intention to sell it. As the parties had partly succeeded and partly failed, there was no order as to costs.

  ---

1234