TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell settled principles of law by the decision of various courts, as per which entries in the books of account is not relevant criteria to decide nature of asset or income or expenses, but what is relevant is nature of assets and intention of the assessee to hold such assets in the business of the assessee. From the intent and conduct of the assessee, it was very clear that those lands were held in the business of the assessee as stock-in-trade and further, profits derived from sale of said land was rightly assessed under the head income from business or profession. The Assessing Officer having accepted income declared from sale of land under the head profits gains from business, was erred in considering those lands as investments which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r that the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions of ₹ 51,00,000/- to the wealth of the appellant, made by the learned Assessing Officer with respect to the land purchased from Mr Balaji Prem Raj 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions of ₹ 41,00,000/- to the wealth of the appellant, made by the learned Assessing Officer with respect to the land purchased from Mr. Maheswaran and Mrs.Uma Maheswaran; 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the additions of ₹ 19,20,000/- to the wealth of the appellant, made by the learned Assessing Officer with respect to the land at plot No. 27 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before CWT(A). Before the learned CWT(A), the assessee has reiterated his arguments made before the Assessing Officer and submitted that entries in books of account is not relevant criteria to decide nature of asset, but what is relevant is nature of the asset and purpose of holding asset. In this case, the assessee has purchased assets for the purpose of business and income from sale of said asset was offered to tax under the head income from business . Therefore, the Assessing Officer was incorrect in assessing those assets for the purpose of wealth tax. The learned CWT(A), after considering relevant facts and also taken note of various reasons given by the Assessing Officer, held that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rpose of business, which is evident from the fact that all these assets were shown as investments in the books of account of the assessee. Had these assets were bought for the purpose of business, the assessee should have shown these assets under the head stock-in-trade. But, fact remains that these assets were never considered as stock-in-trade and hence, offering profit under the head income-from business does not take away right of the Assessing Officer to tax those assets for the purpose of wealth tax, when nature of asset comes under definition of assets as defined u/s.2(e)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 7. We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... well settled principles of law by the decision of various courts, as per which entries in the books of account is not relevant criteria to decide nature of asset or income or expenses, but what is relevant is nature of assets and intention of the assessee to hold such assets in the business of the assessee. In this case, the assessee has filed necessary evidence to prove that Balaji Premraj land was held as stock-in-trade and profit from sale of said land was assessed under the head income from business . Similarly, M/s. Maheswaran Uma Mahesswaran land was held as stock-in-trade and profit from sale of said land was offered as business income for assessment year 2012-13. Similarly, land at Astalakshmi Nagar, Porur was sold in assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
