9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Definition of 'asset' under section 2(ea)(i)(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. 2. Exemption from wealth-tax for properties partly used for business and partly let out. Detailed Analysis: 1. Definition of 'asset' under section 2(ea)(i)(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957: The primary issue revolves around the definition of 'asset' under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, particularly sub-clause (3), which pertains to properties used for business or profession. The Wealth-tax Act includes various types of properties under the definition of 'assets' for wealth-tax purposes. The definition has undergone several amendments, impacting the inclusion and exclusion criteria for certain properties. The relevant provisions during the assessment years 1997-98 and 1998-99 included: - Any building or land appurtenant thereto, whether used for residential or commercial purposes. - Exclusions included houses meant exclusively for residential purposes allotted to employees, houses forming part of stock-in-trade, and houses occupied by the assessee for business or profession. The Finance (No. 2) Act, 1996, introduced the inclusion of commercial properties not occupied by the assessee for their business or profession within the ambit of 'assets'. This was further elaborated by Departmental Circular No. 762, dated 18-2-1998, which clarified that commercial buildings not used exclusively for the assessee's business or profession would be taxable under the Wealth-tax Act. 2. Exemption from wealth-tax for properties partly used for business and partly let out: The assessee argued that the property in question, which was partly used for its business and partly let out, should be exempt from wealth-tax under section 2(ea)(i)(3). The property, known as New Prakash Cinema Building House, was partially occupied by the assessee for its office and the remaining portion was leased to a tenant, M/s. Siti Cable Network Pvt. Ltd., with rental income assessed under 'Income from house property'. The Assessing Officer and CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CWT v. Fagun Estates (P.) Ltd. [2005] 272 ITR 472, which held that only properties occupied by the assessee for their business or profession are excluded from wealth-tax, not those leased to tenants. The Tribunal referenced the Mumbai Tribunal's decision in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. WTO [2005] 95 ITD 66, which concluded that only the portion of the property occupied by the assessee and on which depreciation is allowed qualifies for exemption. The portion leased out and assessed as income from property does not qualify for exemption under the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal also considered the Departmental Circular No. 772, dated 23-12-1998, which clarified the exclusion of properties used for business or profession and the inclusion of commercial properties not occupied by the assessee for their business. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee did not establish that letting out the property was part of its business. The rental income was assessed as 'Income from house property', not business income. Therefore, the portion of the property leased to the tenant was included as an asset within the definition under section 2(ea)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. Conclusion: The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed. The Tribunal upheld the inclusion of the leased portion of the property within the definition of 'assets' under the Wealth-tax Act, as it was not used exclusively for the assessee's business or profession. The decision emphasized the clear legislative intent and statutory provisions regarding the taxation of commercial properties not occupied by the assessee for their business or profession.
|
