9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (6) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f convenience. 2. The assessee is a company. The assessee owns the following items of properties: (i) 6.08 acres in RS. No. 66/1, Mundayad, Cannanore (ii) 1.84 acres in RS No. 65/2, Mundayad, Cannanore. (iii) 9.46 acres in RS No. 58/ Mundayad (iv) 6.5 acres in RS No. 66/2, Mundayad, Cannanore. 3. In the returns filed for the years under consideration, the assessee claimed that al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the land was used for industrial purposes, it could be said that the entire lands were not agricultural lands and that the land in question are appurtenant to the buildings used for business purposes and, therefore, they are exempt from wealth-tax under s. 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. It was submitted that the value of Rs. 5,000 per cent adopted by the AO was excessive. After conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... second appeal before the Tribunal. 4. The assessee has produced before us the following documents: 1. Notice under s. 3 of the Kerala Land Acquisition Act issued by Special Tahsildar dt. 26th July, 1980. 2. Notification by Govt. of Kerala, Housing (A) Department, dt. 17th Dec., 1984. 3. No objection Certificate issued by Kerala State Pollution Control Board, dt. 2nd June, 1988. 4. D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng or land appurtenant used as a factory' it would not also be a vacant land lying unused falling under item (v) and, therefore, the asset being a land on which factory was under construction was not an asset falling under either item (v) or under the exemption to item (vi) that is, building not used for business purpose so as to be taxed under s. 40. The learned Departmental Representative suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
