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 →

Wealth Tax Officer, Ward-1 (2) (5) , Ahmedabad Versus Pannalal Baijnath Jaiswal

2016 (7) TMI 659 - ITAT AHMEDABAD

Wealth tax assessment on the properties owned by the assessee - as assessee’s contention that the properties cannot be considered to be an asset within the meaning of term asset as “wealth” defined under Wealth Tax Act - Held that:- We find that the ld.CWT(A) while deleting the addition has given a finding that assessee was receiving rent from the profits which has been considered by WTO as “wealth” and the properties were covered under Exception four –Section 2(ea)(i)(4) & (5) of the Act. Befor .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

favour of assessee - W.T.A. No.02/Ahd/2016 - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr.DR For The Respondent : Shri Ankit Talsania, AR ORDER PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld.Commissioner of Wealth Tax(Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad [CWT(A) in short] dated 27/01/2016 for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The relevant facts as culle .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rutiny proceedings, the AO noticed that assessee had land property at ₹ 9,87,61,681/-. The AO was therefore of the view that assessee was liable for Wealth Tax. Accordingly, notice u/s.17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was issued by him on 17/07/2013 and served upon the assessee and in response to which assessee filed return of wealth on 25/02/2014 declaring total wealth of ₹ 14,76,000/-. Thereafter, the assessment was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s.16(3) r.w.s. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ned. The various additions made by the AO are dealt as under. 6.1. Addition of ₹ 17,74,000/- : It is seen that the said property is a residential property situated at Mumbai (Annexure -A to the letter dated 15/01/2014 furnished on pg.no.1-2 of P/B) and the Appellant is in receipt of rent of ₹ 1,11,000/- (Pg. No.8 of written submission - being a ledger account of rent read with page no.8 of P/B - being a Profit & loss account). Therefore, the said property is covered by the Except .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed as "asset" for the purpose of determining wealth tax of the Appellant. Therefore, the said addition is also hereby deleted. 6.3 Addition of ₹ 12,00,000/- :- On perusal of Annexure - 3 to the letter dated 15/01/2014 furnished on pg. no. 1-2 of P/B, it is seen that it is a residential property. It is further seen that the Appellant is in receipt of rent of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Pg. No. 8 of written submission - being a ledger account of rent read with page no.8 of P/B - being a Pr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re - 4 to the letter dated 15/01/2014 furnished on pg. no.1-2 of P/B, it is seen that it is a residential property and self-occupied by the Appellant. Therefore, it is covered by the exemption provisions of S.5 of the Act and hence cannot be treated as "asset" for the purpose of determining wealth tax under the scheme of the Act. Therefore, the said addition is hereby deleted. 6.5. Therefore, Ground Nos. 3,4,5 are allowed. Ground No.2 is dismissed. 2.3. Aggrieved by the order of ld.CWT .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by deleting the addition of ₹ 47,78,685/- made on account of urban land, considering the same as exempt wealth, based on the assessee's claim that the property was not a land, but commercial complex in spite of the fact that the assessee had not substantiated the same with cogent evidence during the course of assessment proceeding. (3) That the Id. CWT(A) has substantially erred by deleting the addition of ₹ 12,52,400/- & ₹ 15,66,060/-. made on account of plot and Joint .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rule, 1962. 3. Before us, ld.Sr.DR supported the order of WTO. Ld.AR, on the other hand, reiterated the submissions made before the WTO and ld.CWT(A) and further submitted that the assets were commercial in nature held by him for business purposes and therefore those assets cannot be considered to be an asset within the meaning of asset u/s.2(ea)(i)(3) and section 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Wealth Tax Act. He further submitted that t .....

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