Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Arunkumar V. Talati L/H of Late Savitaben Vrajlal Talati Versus Wealth Tax Officer, Ward -1 (2) (1) , Baroda

2016 (4) TMI 500 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Reassessment - addition of alleged urban land - contentions of the assessee to treat the land as “land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority” and thus excludible from ‘urban land’ exigible to wealth tax - Held that:- We are, however, not persuaded by learned counsel’s submission. The words are clear and unambiguous. A piece of vacated land cannot be excluded from taxable wealth simply because building has been constructed thereupon sub .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

slation and not by judicial interpretation.To us, there appears no justification to depart from normal rule of construction according to which the intention of Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the words used in the statute. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied. One can only look fairly at the language used.” Once it is shown that the case of the assessee comes withi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the assessee has challenged correctness of the learned CWT(A) s order dated 18th October, 2015, in the matter of assessment under section 16(3) r.w.s. 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1967 for the assessment year 2008-09, on the following grounds :- 1. The learned CWT(A) has erred in holding that the reassessment is valid in as much as there is no escapement of wealth. 2. The learned CWT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of alleged urban land of ₹ 69,34,500 on the ground that it is not dis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

there is no proof to show that the same is included in the gold and silver ornaments of ₹ 23,59,948 disclosed in Wealth Tax return for A.Y. 2008-09 in as much as the gold and silver ornaments of ₹ 1,96,543 is in fact included in the value of gold and silver ornaments of ₹ 23,59,948 as evident from the fact that the gold and silver ornaments of ₹ 1,96,543 are valued at market rate as on 31/03/2008 at ₹ 23,59,948 and that the working of valuation is also disclosed in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ased to construct house, which was eventually constructed and the construction was completed on 13th January, 2011, it should not be treated as a vacant land includible in taxable wealth. The Assessing Officer rejected his contention and held that the land is shown, as such, in the balance sheet and is includible in the taxable wealth tax. In appeal, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. Learned CIT(A) upheld the stand of the Assessing Officer, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

h that the land was anything but urban land within the meaning of section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee has submitted that the plot of land was purchased to construct a residential house for herself, but has failed to submit any evidence to establish that she had any relevant permissions from any Competent Authority, during the year under consideration, to construct a residential house on the property. The L/H has failed to furnish evidence in the form of approved plans, construct .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

sis, as far as the plot of land in question is concerned. It is noticed from the material available on the record that the relevant construction permission was obtained by the assessee on 18.06.2010, therefore, it cannot be said that it was a "residential house" or "building under construction" before the construction permission. Assessee's claim that she had constructed a house on the said plot of land on 13.01.2011 has no bearing on the issue under consideration, as the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tisfied and is in further appeal before us. 4. Learned counsel for the assessee urges us to read down the definition of vacant land in such a manner so as to exclude land purchased bonafide for constructing a building where the process of obtaining approval could not be even initiated due to very short time gap between the date of acquisition and the relevant date of valuing wealth for wealth tax purposes. He submits that the land was acquired on 27th March, 2008 and the assessee could not have .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the authorities below. 5. We are, however, not persuaded by learned counsel s submission. The words are clear and unambiguous. A piece of vacated land cannot be excluded from taxable wealth simply because building has been constructed thereupon subsequently. As for the genuine hardship being faced by the assessee, we need not commiserate with the assessee because it is not for us to supply the casus omissus, even if any. In the case of Tarulata Shyam vs. CIT [(1977) 108 ITR 345 (SC)], Hon ble Su .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version