TMI Blog2005 (9) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business income and is not the approach and reliance on the finding in the wealth-tax case wrong, unwarranted and vitiated?" - The first order is dated December 23,1994. Petition to recall was filed on May 6, 1997, i.e., within two years and six months. The second order is dated October 18, 2000. We agree with learned counsel for the Revenue that the time taken by the Tribunal to pass orders c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and restored the original assessment. A petition was filed to recall that order as there were some mistakes. It was allowed. Subsequently, the Tribunal heard the appeal again and the Tribunal passed the order in favour of the assessee. Hence, the Revenue has come in appeal. The assessee is conducting business in hosiery and handloom goods. For this purpose, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lies Corporation and kalyana mandapam was treated as business income and, hence, for the purpose of wealth-tax also, it can be termed as business premises coming under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act. In the appeal, the following questions of law are raised: "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the assessee's case is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter, rest room, etc. According to us, the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the warehouse buildings had to be excluded from the wealth-tax provisions. It may be true that the income from the business conducted in the buildings was treated as business income. But what we have to find out is whether under the relevant provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, this can be applied. Since in these cases ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
