9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (9) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to get the exemption from additional wealth-tax levy. This has been rejected by both the authorities below and this ground is pressed before us. 10. The relevant provision reads as follows : " (2) In addition, in the case of every individual and Hindu undivided family, where the net wealth of the individual or Hindu undivided family includes the value of any asset, being building or land (other than business premises) or any right in such building or land, situated in an urban area (such asset being hereafter in this Part referred to as urban asset). " Rule 1(i) defines 'business premises'. It reads as follows : " (i) 'business premises' means any building or land or part of such building or land or any right in building or land or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... land which has been brought into the partnership fold by constructing multi-storey flats. For the purpose of wealth-tax, the assessee's interest in the partnership firm is worked out and in so working out the value of the property which is being exploited by the partnership firm was determined. The value of such interest is included in the wealth of the assessee. The assessee is, therefore, claiming that in respect of his share of interest in the partnership firm, which consists of the property, should not be subjected to additional wealth-tax liability on the ground mentioned earlier. The expression 'business premises' must be understood in the sense of the place where the business of the partnership firm is being carried on. Whenever it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be given a rational meaning in holding that it is a place of business or in other words a place where the assessee is carrying on business. Suppose the assessee is exploiting lands at different places by constructing several buildings. All such buildings cannot be treated as business premises. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Unni. 12. Mr. Unni alternatively contended that the portion which is actually used for the purpose of business should be exempt. There is some force in this contention. Since, however, this question has been taken up for the first time, interests of justice would be served by directing the WTO to earmark that portion of the building, which is actually used for the purpose of carrying on bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
