9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 regarding exemption for assets forming part of an industrial undertaking belonging to a firm or association of persons. Analysis: The judgment involved four cases with a common question of law regarding the interpretation of clause (xxxii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The cases revolved around whether the value of land and building forming part of an industrial undertaking can be exempted under section 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act. The assessee, a partner in a firm owning an industrial undertaking, claimed exemption for the value of his interest in the assets, including land and building. The Tribunal allowed the exemption, but the Revenue contended that the exemption does not extend to land and building. The key issue was the interpretation of the clause and whether the exemption covers land and building. The Revenue argued that the phrase "referred to in any other clause of this sub-section" excludes land and building from the exemption under clause (xxxii). They contended that the exemption is not admissible for the partner's interest in lands and buildings, owned by the firm, unless not referred to in any other clause of section 5(1). On the other hand, the assessee argued that if the clause allows exemption, it should not be negated based on intricate rules of interpretation. The assessee contended that the phrase also qualifies land and building, and the exemption can be excluded only if availed in another clause of section 5(1). The judgment favored the assessee, emphasizing that the rule of interpretation in taxing statutes should lean in favor of the taxpayer. The court cited precedents stating that any doubt in interpretation should benefit the taxpayer. It rejected the Revenue's contention based on the maxim expressio unius, emphasizing a liberal construction of exemption clauses. The judgment highlighted that even if there were repetitions in the clause, they were cautionary and should not curtail the exemption. The court also dismissed the argument that the Legislature did not intend to extend the exemption to land and building, emphasizing that if the taxpayer falls within the plain terms of exemption, they should benefit from it. In conclusion, the court held that the Tribunal correctly allowed exemption to the assessee for the value of land and building forming part of the industrial undertaking. The answer to the questions in all four cases was in favor of the assessee. The judgment highlighted the importance of interpreting exemption clauses liberally in favor of the taxpayer in taxing statutes.
|
