10156408

Wealth Tax INTENDED FOR NOV 2011 EXAM 2011 , TMI , 203374 , PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH THE COURTROOM Rajiv Kumar. Versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Metropolitan land , Agricultural area , the situation is protected against the assessee by purchase of this Courtroom dated 8.

9. 2003 in Watts. T. A. No . one particular of the year 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another , Decided resistant to the assessee ,. ,.. 04. 1993 to get charging the wealth taxes? iii) Whether or not the order is usually sustainable by not rising that according to Article 246 r. w. List-1 of 7th Slated Item Number 6 the tax on the capital worth of farming lands cannot be levied by the Parliament and therefore the meaning rendered is unconstitutional?  Learned suggest for the assessee pretty states that the matter is definitely covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 8. on the lookout for. 2003 in W. Capital t. A. Number 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann sixth is v. CWT, Patiala & one other. Accordingly, these appeals happen to be dismissed. A photocopy on this order become placed on the file of each and every connected case. 2011 , TMI , 203338 , PUNJAB AND HARYANA EXCESSIVE COURT Office of Wealth Tax. Vs S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh.

Assets u/c 2(ea)- The appeal of the Revenue by simply ignoring that under the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act the city land is included in the meaning of ‘assets’ watts. e. f. 01. apr. 1993 and merits the cost of such city land was taxable , The Determining Officer included the agricultural,. ,.. while using judgment belonging to he total Bench on this Court. 5. On is worth, view has already been taken in prefer of the revenue by purchase passed today in T. T. A. No . 23 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Office of Riches Tax and so forth 6. Consideringg judgment of Full Table of this Court in M/s Varindera Construction Co.

Baghapurana, we are of the view the fact that impugned order of the Cortège cannot be endured and the same is set besides. The matter can be remanded for the Tribunal to get fresh decision on merits. It is made clear that in the event the assessee is usually aggrieved by this order, they will be at freedom to way this Court docket. The charm is disposed of. 2011 , TMI , 203319 , PUNJAB AND HARYANA SUBSTANTIAL COURT Smt. Surinder Kaur. Versus The Commissioner of Prosperity Tax & another. Resources u/s 2(ea)- Agricultural Property of which farming operation were being carried out , Hence, the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Courtroom dated eight.. 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann sixth is v. CWT, Patiala & one more , Accordingly, these speaks are dismissed,. ,.. stantial question of law: – “i) If in the details and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding the Section 2(ea) of the Riches Tax Action would range from the Agricultural Property of the Appellant of which farming operation were being carried out?  Learned lawyer for the assessee fairly states which the matter is definitely covered against the assessee simply by order on this Court dated 8. 9. 2003 in W. Big t. A. No . 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann sixth is v.

CWT, Patiala & another. Accordingly, these kinds of appeals will be dismissed. A photocopy with this order be placed on the file of each and every connected circumstance. 2011 , TMI , 203253 , PUNJAB AND HARYANA LARGE COURT Office of Wealth Tax. Vs S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh. Assets u/s 2(ea)- The Assessing Official included the agricultural land falling within the definition of ‘Urban land’ and ‘asset’ beneath Section 2(ea) for analysis under the Work , CIT(A) deleted the addition , ITAT declined to amuse the appeal on the ground that amount is tiny , Placed that: , the,. ,.. ith the judgment belonging to he total Bench on this Court. a few. On value, view has already been taken in favour of the revenue by purchase passed today in T. T. A. No . 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax and so forth 6. Consideringg judgment of Full Along with of this The courtroom in M/s Varindera Structure Co. Baghapurana, we are of the view the fact that impugned buy of the Cortège cannot be continual and the same is set apart. The matter can be remanded to the Tribunal pertaining to fresh decision on merits. It is made clear that in case the assessee is usually aggrieved at this time order, they shall be at freedom to approach this Courtroom.

The charm is discarded. 2011 , TMI , 203386 , DELHI HIGH COURT Office of Wealth-tax Delhi-VI Vs . Motor & General Financial Ltd. Assessement , (a) Whether around the facts and circumstances of the case, would it be mandatory to issue see under section 16(5) from the Wealth-tax Take action before transferring best view assessment in the event where go back was not recorded pursuant to see under section 16(4) in the Act? (b) Whether not any notice unde,. ,.. f the relevant yr has gone through various models of litigation before the government bodies below due to no fault from the revenue. installment payments on your In view of our above discussion we solution question (a) in the adverse that in which return was not filed pursuant to notice below section 16(4) of the Act, no further notice was necessary under section 16(5) just before passing of best view assessment. We answer the second question in affirmative in the sense that exactly where notice below sub-section (4) of section 16 experienced already been granted, no detect was instructed to be issued taking into consideration second proviso to section 16(5). The appeals are disposed of appropriately. 011 , TMI , 203069 , DELHI SUBSTANTIAL COURT Office of Wealth-tax Versus. Motor and Basic Finance Limited U/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 , The assessee is within receipt of amount by various houses and had displayed rental receipts of Rs. 6, 14, 36, 188 (assessment yr 1997-98) and Rs. two, 34, 18, 846 (assessment 1998-99) , The assessee had not registered the wealth-tax returns for these years and there being t,. ,.. élévateur year moved through different rounds of litigation before the authorities below because of no-fault of the Earnings. 22.

Taking into consideration our previously mentioned discussion we all answer question (a) inside the negative that where the go back was not recorded pursuant to see under section 16(4) of the Act, no more notice was mandatory underneath section 16(5) prior to completing of best judgment evaluation. We answer the second query in the endorsement in the sense that where recognize under sub-section (4) of section of sixteen had been issued, no notice was required to be given in view of the other proviso to section 16(5). Both speaks are discarded accordingly. 2011 , TMI , 202991 , ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Commissioner Of Income Tax Compared to Late Sri Salekh Chand Through Legal Heirs Smt. Uma Rani& Ors If asset being assessed inside the hands of each and every of the co-owners separately rather than in the hands of A. O. P. , similar concerns were referenced in Prosperity Tax Research No . 134 of 99 which were responded in endorsement i. elizabeth. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue ” subject remanded to Tribuna,. ,.. ) (b) of the W. T. Work are applicable in cases like this rather than Section 21-AA? 3.? Assessment Years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988? lso are involved in all these references. 5. The suggest for the parties also state that identical questions were referred in Wealth Duty Reference No . 134 of 1999 that were answered in affirmative we. e. in preference of the assessee and against the Revenue in 12. 7. 2007. five. In view of the answer given in it, we also answer the questions reported us in affirmative we. e. in favour of the assessee and up against the Revenue. 6th. Let each of our opinion end up being sent back to the Tribunal pertaining to passing appropriate orders. 2011 , TMI , 203435 , PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT DOCKET

Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs . Shri Charanjit Singh (HUF) Agricultural land , further than municipal limitations , the land testing 66 kanals 2 Galin? is situated further than the informed distance of three kms from municipal limit and as such it is not necessarily asset chargeable to wealth-tax with in this is of clause (ea) of section a couple of ,. ,.. he CWT(A) and the Conseil have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the land under consideration was beyond the notified distance through the municipal restrictions, the fact remains that regarding brother of the respondent-assessee, the revenue features accepted the finding in the CWT(A).. Consideringg above, do not find any kind of ground to support the obtaining of the Conseil to be obstructive ? uncooperative. The question Number 1 has, thus, to get answered against the revenue and favour of the matter has been decided in preference of the assessee in the order mentioned above, the said question has also to be answered up against the revenue. Accordingly, the charm is ignored. 2011 , TMI , 203105 , HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH THE COURTROOM Commissioner of Wealth Taxes Versus. M/s. H. S. Small Industries & Foreign trade Corp.

Assets u/s 2(ea) , The assessee which can be the State Small Industries and Export Corporation was allocated some land by the State , The assessee created sheds within this land and rented out the same to industrialists , The Assessee in its return of income included the rents received on account of t,. ,.. never raised prior to any of the regulators below and additional more we could of the watch that the words of clause (iii) of Section 2(ea) indicate the fact that house being exempt must be in the job of the ssessee for the purpose of any kind of business or profession continued by him. Keeping in view the language from the Section it cannot be declared that the assessee was in control through the tenants. In view of the above mentioned discussion, the questions happen to be answered in preference of the Income and resistant to the Assessee. The order in the Tribunal is definitely set-aside as well as the order of the Assessing Official as verified by the Commissioner (Appeal) is definitely restored. Zero costs. GANESANRAMAN CA FINAL CHENNAI