Important Wealth Tax Cases Law for Ca Final Dt Nov 2011

Wealth Tax FOR NOV 2011 EXAM 2011 – TMI – 203374 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Rajiv Kumar. Versus Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Urban land – Agricultural land – the matter is covered 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 – Decided against the assessee †¦. †¦.. 04. 1993 for charging the wealth tax? iii) Whether the order is sustainable by not appreciating that as per Article 246 r. w. List-1 of 7th Scheduled Item No. 6 the tax on the capital value of agricultural lands can not be levied by the Parliament and hence the interpretation rendered is unconstitutional? † Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the matter is covered 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 appeals are dismissed. A photocopy of this or der be placed on the file of each connected case. 2011 – TMI – 203338 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth Tax. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh. Assets u/c 2(ea)- The appeal of the Revenue by ignoring that under the provisions of section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act the urban land is included 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 included the agricultural†¦. †¦.. with the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court. 5. On merits, view 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 view 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 – 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 out – 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:- â€Å"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 Act would include the Agricultu ral Land of the Appellant of which agricultural operation were being carried out? † Learned counsel for the assessee fairly states that the matter is covered 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 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, view 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 view that the impu gned 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 mandatory to issue notice under section 16(5) of the Wealth-tax Act before passing best judgment assessment in case where return was not filed pursuant to notice under section 16(4) of the Act? (b) Whether no notice unde†¦. †¦.. f the relevant year has gone through various rounds of litigation before the authorities below because of no fault of the revenue. 2. In view of our above discussion we answer 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) prior to passing of best judgment assessment. We answer the second question in affirmative in the sense that where notice under sub-section (4) of section 16 had already been i ssued, no notice was required to be issued in view of second proviso to section 16(5). Both 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 receipts 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 through various rounds of litigation before the authorities below because of no fault of the 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 affirmative 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 COURT Commissioner Of Income Tax Versus Late Sri Salekh Chand Through 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. – similar 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 applicable 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 also state that similar 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 s ent back to the Tribunal for passing appropriate orders. 2011 – TMI – 203435 – PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Commissioner 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 accepted the finding of the CWT(A). . In view of above, we do not find any 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 decided 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. 2 011 – TMI – 203105 – HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT Commissioner of Wealth Tax Versus. M/s. H. P. Small Industries & Export Corp. Assets u/s 2(ea) – The assessee which is the State 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 exempt must be in the occupation of the ssessee for the purpose of any business 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 confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is restored. No costs. GANESANRAMAN CA FINAL CHENNAI