TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1607X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of handing over possession should have taken place in furtherance of the agreement of sale. The provisions of Section 53A are very clear. In cases of joint development, neither the builder nor the owner can claim benefit of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. Therefore, Section 4(8)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act would have no application to the facts on hand. Hence the questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant/revenue. - W.T.A.No.1 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 7-9-2017 - SRI V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND SMT T. RAJANI, JJ. For The Appellant : Mr. J. V. Prasad For The Respondent : Sri A.V. A. Siva Karthikeya JUDGMENT: (Per VRS,J) The Revenue has come up with the above appeal under Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee as aforesaid, by taking into consideration the market value of certain properties including two properties in Hyderabad. As against the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee dealing with the wealth tax liability as regards two out of four properties. But the commissioner confirmed the wealth tax liability in respect of the property at Shaikpet. 5. Therefore, the assessee filed a further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Though the contentions of the assessee all along including before the Tribunal was that he was engaged in purchase and sale of properties and that therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... house meant exclusively for residential purposes and which is allotted by a company to an employee or an officer or a director who is in whole-time employment, having a gross annual salary of less than (ten 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; (4) any residential property that has been let-out for a minimum period of three hundred days in the previous year; (5) any property in the nature of commercial establishments or complexes; (ii) motor cars (other than those used by the assessee in the business of running them on hire or as stock-in-trade); (ii ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess than ten thousand; or (ii) in any area within the distance, measured aerially, -- (I) not being more than two kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II)not being more than six kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in subclause (i) and which has a population of more than one lakh but not exceeding ten lakh; or (III) not being more than eight kilometres, from the local referred to in sub-clause (i) and which has a population of more than ten lakh, but does not include land on which construction of a building is not permissible un ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. The language used in Explanation-1(b) is crystal clear to the effect that what is excluded is only land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated. 9. In the case on hand, there was a private property dispute which led to the filing of a civil suit in O.S.No.248 of 2003. In that private property dispute there was an interim order to maintain status quo passed by the civil Court. Therefore, such an interim order of status quo passed by a Civil Court prohibiting the assessee from putting up a construction till the resolution of the private property dispute, does not tantamount to a prohibition under any law for the time being in force in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rallel from the provisions of the Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, only because they were dealing with a first appeal. The ratio laid down by the Gujarat High Court would have no application to a second appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act or Section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, since the scope of consideration in these appeals are extremely circumscribed in a manner akin to Section 100 of the code. Therefore, we do not think that the respondentassessee can raise the other ground taking advantage of the appeal filed by the Revenue. 15. The learned counsel for the assessee also contended that under Section 4(8)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, a person, who has taken possession of any building in part performance of a contract, in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
