TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR RK PATEL, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench C (hereinafter referred to as ITAT) dated 23.06.2006 in WTA No. 1/Ahd/2006 for the Assessment Year 1997- 98, the revenue has preferred the present Tax Appeal for consideration of the following substantial question of law: (A) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the properties at Worli, Mumbai owned by the assessee was outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view of the decision of this Court rendered on 16.06.2012 in Tax Appeal No. 541 of 2006 wherein this Court has held as under. 7. A perusal of the provisions of section 2(ea) of Act, as it stood prior to 01.04.1997 shows that any land or building used for commercial purposes was not included within the ambit of the expression assets as defined thereunder, and as such, the property of the nature involved in the present case did not fall within the scope and ambit of the expression assets prior to 01.04.1997. However, with effect from 01.04.1997, the definition of assets has been amended and the words commercial purposes have been specifically inserted therein. The following portion of the Departmental Circular No.762, dated 18th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd which is allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or director who is in wholetime employment, having a gross annual salary of less than two lakh rupees; (2) any house for residential or commercial purposes which forms part of stock-in-trade; (3) any house which the assessee may occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him; 9. Examining the facts of the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, the subject property undoubtedly does not fall within any of the aforesaid three categories which are excluded from the purview of the section 2(ea) of the Act. Moreover, it may be noticed that even before the Commissioner (Appeals) it was not the case of the assessee that it fell within the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned advocates appearing on behalf of the Department and the assessee and the question posed for consideration by us reproduced hereinabove and considering the decision of this Court in Tax Appeal No. 541 of 2006, the question, which is raised in the present appeal is required to be answered in favour of the revenue. We are not giving any elaborate reasons for the same as the question raised in the present appeal has already been answered by this Court in favour of revenue by way of Tax Appeal No. 541 of 2006 . 8. In view of the above, the question raised for consideration in the present appeal is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the revenue and consequently, the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT is quashed and set ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
