9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (1) TMI 7X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar 1976-77, the following question of law has been referred to this court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was wrong in invoking the provisions of section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, inasmuch as the Wealth-tax Officer had not committed any error in excluding the value of the immovable pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erests of the Revenue. He held that the value of the said flat should be determined on rental basis by allowance of outgoings. He, therefore, initiated proceedings under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and determined the value of the said flat at Rs. 1,40,600. Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal against the said order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax. It was con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Madgul Udyog v. CIT [1990] 184 ITR 484. There, it was held that the concept of ownership is not merely a word of technical legal meaning, but it should be interpreted in its broadest possible meaning. If a bundle of rights constitutes ownership of the transferee, the mere fact that conveyance was not registered would not detract from the fact of the assessee having the ownership of su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... session or joint possession, unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of property would, therefore, not bring the property within the definition of "net wealth" for it would not then be an asset "belonging" to the assessee. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the immovable property being the flat in question may not belong to the assessee in the sense in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
