Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Wealth-tax + AT Wealth-tax - 1987 (2) TMI AT This
Issues:
1. Deduction under s. 5 (1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for computing net wealth of the firm. 2. Exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) for the share in the industrial undertaking. 3. Disallowance of liability of Rs. 22,250 received as advance against the agreement to sell land. Analysis: 1. The first issue in this case pertains to the deduction under s. 5 (1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for computing the net wealth of the firm. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the issue had been previously decided in favor of the assessee in a similar case. The Tribunal held that the order of the AAC, which disallowed the deduction, was incorrect. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the WTO to compute the value of the assessee's interest in the firm in accordance with the relevant provision. 2. The second issue raised was regarding the exemption under s. 5(1)(xxxii) for the share in the industrial undertaking. The assessee contended that the claim for exemption was not considered by the WTO and the AAC, despite being raised before them. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions, decided to admit the ground of appeal and remanded the issue back to the WTO for proper consideration and allowance according to law. 3. The final issue involved the disallowance of a liability of Rs. 22,250 received as an advance against an agreement to sell land. The assessee argued that the advance should be allowable as a deduction since the agricultural lands in question were not transferred by the valuation date. However, the WTO and the AAC disallowed the claim based on s. 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act, which restricts deductions for debts related to property exempt from wealth tax. The Tribunal agreed with the decision of the lower authorities, stating that the advance against an exempt asset cannot be considered a liability for deduction. Consequently, this ground of appeal was rejected. In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed based on the first issue, while the second and third issues were decided against the assessee.
|