Important Wealth Tax Cases Law for Ca Final Dt Nov 2011

wealthiness Tax FOR NOV 2011 EXAM 2011 TMI 203374 PUNJAB AND HARYANA game uprightnesscourt Rajiv Kumar. Versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Urban bring Agricultural domain of a function the publication is cover against the assessee by indian lodge of this Court dated 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. nary(prenominal) 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & adenosine monophosphate a nonher Decided against the assessee . .. 04. 1993 for charging the wealth tax? iii) Whether the society is sustainable by not appreciating that as per Article 246 r. w. List-1 of 7th plan Item No. 6 the tax on the capital place of agricultural lands can not be levied by the Parliament and therefrom the interpretation rendered is unconstitutional? Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the matter is cover against the assessee by order of this Court dated 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. No. 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another. Accordingly, these charms argon dismi ssed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected matter. 2011 TMI 203338 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH lawcourt Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh.As typesets u/c 2(ea)- The speak to of the tax revenue enhancement by ignoring that low the provisions of constituent 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax bit the urban land is taked in the definition of assets w. e. f. 01. 04. 1993 and on merits the value of such urban land was taxable The Assessing Officer include the agricultural. .. with the judgment of the upright remove of this Court. 5. On merits, locating has already been taken in party favor of the revenue by order passed today in W. T. A. No. 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax etc. 6. In observe of judgment of expert work bench of this Court in M/s Varindera Construction Co.Baghapurana, we are of the facet that the impugned order of the tourist court cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. T he matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. It is made expire that if the assessee is aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to approach this Court. The appeal is disposed of. 2011 TMI 203319 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Smt. Surinder Kaur. Versus The Commissioner of Wealth Tax & another. Assets u/s 2(ea)- Agricultural Land of which agricultural operation were being carried away(p) Hence, the matter is covered against the assessee by order of this Court dated 8. . 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & another Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. .. stantial question of law- i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax numeral would include the Agricultural Land of the Appellant of which agricultural operation were being carried out? Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the matter is covered agai nst the assessee by order of this Court dated 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. No. 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v.CWT, Patiala & another. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of each connected case. 2011 TMI 203253 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh. Assets u/s 2(ea)- The Assessing Officer included the agricultural land falling under the definition of Urban land and asset under Section 2(ea) for assessment under the Act CIT(A) deleted the addition ITAT refused to entertain the appeal on the ground that amount is small Held that the. .. ith the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. 5. On merits, aspect has already been taken in favour of the revenue by order passed today in W. T. A. No. 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax etc. 6. In view of judgment of Full Bench of this Court in M/s Varindera Construction Co. Baghapurana, we are of the vie w that the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits. It is made clear that if the assessee is aggrieved by this order, they will be at liberty to approach this Court.The appeal is disposed of. 2011 TMI 203386 DELHI HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth-tax Delhi-VI Versus Motor & General Finance Ltd. Assessement (a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of this case, is it authorisation to issue admit under section 16(5) of the Wealth-tax Act earlier passing best judgment assessment in case where return was not filed pursuant(predicate) to notice under section 16(4) of the Act? (b) Whether no notice unde. .. f the re run off year has gone by means of various rounds of litigation before the authorities below because of no defacement of the revenue. 2. In view of our above word of honor we respond question (a) in the negative that where return was not filed pursuant to notice under section 16(4) of the Act, no further notice was mandatory under section 16(5) precedent to passing of best judgment assessment. We practice the second question in assentient in the sense that where notice under sub-section (4) of section 16 had already been issued, no notice was inevitable to be issued in view of second proviso to section 16(5). both(prenominal) the appeals are disposed of accordingly. 011 TMI 203069 DELHI HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth-tax Versus. Motor and General Finance Limited U/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 The assessee is in receipt of amount from various properties and had shown rental pass along of Rs. 6,14,36,188 (assessment year 1997-98) and Rs. 2,34,18,846 (assessment 1998-99) The assessee had not filed the wealth-tax returns for these years and there being t. .. levant year has gone with various rounds of litigation before the authorities below because of no fault of the tax revenue. 22.In view of our above discussion we answer question (a) in the negative that where the return was not filed pursuant to notice under section 16(4) of the Act, no further notice was mandatory under section 16(5) prior to passing of best judgment assessment. We answer the second question in the approbative in the sense that where notice under sub-section (4) of section 16 had already been issued, no notice was required to be issued in view of the second proviso to section 16(5). Both appeals are disposed of accordingly. 2011 TMI 202991 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURTCommissioner Of Income Tax Versus Late Sri Salekh Chand done Legal Heirs Smt. Uma Rani& Ors Whether asset to be assessed in the hands of each of the co-owners separately and not in the hands of A. O. P. comparable questions were referred in Wealth Tax Reference No. 134 of 1999 which were answered in affirmative i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue matter remanded to Tribuna. .. ) (b) of the W. T. Act are relevant in this case rather than Section 21-AA? 3.? Assessment Years 1986-1987 and 1987-1988? re involved in all these references. 4. The counsel for the parties as well as state that interchangeable questions were referred in Wealth Tax Reference No. 134 of 1999 which were answered in affirmative i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue on 12. 7. 2007. 5. In view of the answer given therein, we also answer the questions referred to us in affirmative i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. Let our opinion be sent back to the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders. 2011 TMI 203435 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURTCommissioner of Wealth-tax Versus Shri Charanjit Singh (HUF) Agricultural land beyond municipal limits the land measuring 66 kanals 2 Maras is situated beyond the notified distance of 3 kms from municipal limit and as such it is not asset chargeable to wealth-tax with in the meaning of clause (ea) of section 2 . .. he CWT(A) and the Tribunal have concurrently recorded a finding of fact that the land in question was beyond the notified distance from the municipal limits, the fact remains that in the case of brother of the respondent-assessee, the revenue has accept the finding of the CWT(A). . In view of above, we do not find whatever ground to hold the finding of the Tribunal to be perverse. The question No. 1 has, thus, to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the matter has been firm in favour of the assessee in the order mentioned above, the said question has also to be answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 2011 TMI 203105 HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth Tax Versus. M/s. H. P. subaltern Industries & Export Corp.Assets u/s 2(ea) The assessee which is the conjure Small Industries and Export Corporation was allotted some land by the State The assessee constructed sheds on 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 before any of the authorities below and further more we are of the view that the words of clause (iii) of Section 2(ea) indicate that the house to be relieve must be in the occupation of the ssessee for the purpose of any course or profession carried on by him. Keeping in view the language of the Section it cannot be said that the assessee was in possession through the tenants. In view of the above discussion, the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The order of the Tribunal is set-aside and the order of the Assessing Officer as substantiate by the Commissioner (Appeal) is restored. No costs. GANESANRAMAN CA FINAL CHENNAI