2010 (3) TMI 451

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cated amount of incentive was a personal reward for promotion of export of handloom goods given by the Central Government Handloom Export Promotion Council. Such reward remittance do not fall within the purview of movable or immovable property and cannot possible be termed as assets as defined under section 2(e) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. it was not liable to wealth tax. - 3 of 2006 - - - Date .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ferred the appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which was also dismissed, vide order dated August 21, 1987 (annexure D). The application of the Revenue for referring the matter to this court was dismissed by the Tribunal, vide order dated January 19, 1988 (annexure A). 2. The Revenue did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (annexure A) and filed the instant case, which was .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... onsidered view that the amount in question of the share of the assessee in cash incentive and duty draw back did not represent any assets. The indicated amount of incentive is a personal reward for promotion of export of handloom goods given by the Handloom Export Promotion Council. Such reward remittance do not fall within the purview of movable or immovable property and cannot possibly be termed .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X