9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (11) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2-1988 it entered into a 99-year lease with SIPCOT (State Industries Promotion Corporation of Tamil nadu Limited) for acquiring a factory site at the industrial complex at Gummidipoondi. The assessee immediately started laying the foundation. As on the valuation date 31-3-1988, the construction of the factory building was in progress. It was completed only after the valuation date. On these facts, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en in fact construction of the factory was in progress. On the other hand, the revenue supported the orders of the authorities below by contending that the assessee must be treated as a land other than agricultural land in section 40(3)(v) of Finance Act, 1983 and, therefore, it was liable to tax. 4. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we are of the opinion that the assessee is entitled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e taxable. The contention of the assessee is that since construction of the building has started, it cannot be treated as a vacant land falling under clause (v) but must be treated as building or land appurtenant thereto used as a factory or business premises. It is in this context that the proviso introduced to item (v) becomes significant. That proviso states that nothing in clause shall apply t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the following assets shall not form part of the net wealth for the purposes of levy of wealth-tax under the section:- (i) Precious metals used as raw-material in industrial production; (ii) Land other than agricultural land proposed to be utilised for industrial purposes, for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition;" This indicates that item (v) was intended to refer to unused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of these entries particularly with reference to the Memorandum explaining the proviso to item (v) clearly indicates that it was never the intention of the Legislature to tax the land on which a factory is being constructed as on the valuation date. We are, therefore, convinced that the asset being a land on which factory was under construction is not an asset falling under either item (v) or under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
