9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (3) TMI 608X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld apply to consider the claim for exemption in the case of the assessee. Sub-clauses (4) and (5) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act have no application, as already noticed, those are the provisions which came into force subsequent to the assessment in question. HELD - the only plea being raised on sub-clauses (4) and (5) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, which have no application with reference to the assessment in question and since other clauses have no application under which the assessee could claim exemption, we find that the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax is not liable to be interfered with - - - - - Dated:- 9-3-2010 - RAMAN P. R., RAMACHANDRAN NAIR C. N. JJ JUDGMENT P. R. Raman Actg. C. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and Investments Ltd. had promoted a project on the said land for construction of residential apartments. After considering the records of the promoter company, M/s. Synthite Properties, it was seen that the assessee-company purchased 30 apartments from the promoter company for a value of Rs. 5,16,20,665. It was stated by the assessee-com- pany that the intention to purchase these flats was to help the promoter company to tide over the financial crisis and also to enable the assessee- company to start a hotel business in the apartments. Though in the bal- ance-sheet of the assessee-company, this item of asset was not specifically mentioned, the work-in-progress of the building in research and devel- opment department to the extent of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otel business or any other line of business was not put into effect during the year under consideration, such asset could not and would not partake of the nature of commercial establishment or complex, so as to be eligible for the exception enunciated in section 2(ea)(i)(5) of the Act. He, accordingly, set aside the order of the Wealth-tax Officer and directed to redo the same, in the light of the discussions made in that order. 3. The assessee appealed. The Tribunal took the view that sub-clauses (4) and (5) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act was brought into force subsequently and, therefore, not relevant for the concerned assessment year, to which exemption was claimed. Both sides agree that the provision did come into force only later a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee-company had purchased 30 apartments from the promoter company for a value of Rs. 5,16,20,665. If, as a matter of fact, the construction of the buildings was not complete, that being a question of fact, ought to have been pleaded in the reply and no such contention was raised. 6. In the above circumstances, the only plea being raised on sub-clauses (4) and (5) of section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, which have no application with reference to the assessment in question and since other clauses have no application under which the assessee could claim exemption, we find that the order passed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax is not liable to be interfered with. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
