9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (8) TMI 768X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rved as recreation ground and on the date of assessment the local authorities had not granted permission to construct any building on it. Even till the passing the order by the FAA, permission was not granted to construct building on the plot of land owned by the assesseehad. Before us, also no evidence was produced that prove that permission was granted to the assessee had for construction in the year under consideration. Therefore, considering the factual matrix of the matter and the above mentioned two judgments, we are of the opinion that the order of the FAA does not suffer from any legal infirmity. Confirming his orders we decide first two grounds against the AO. Receivable compensation cannot be taken for valuing an asset on a par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lete the value of the land for Wealth Tax purposes as being exempt u/s. 2(2ea)(ii) of the W. T. Act without considering the compensation receivable by the assessee in lieu of the impugned asset being reserved by the local authority. The appellant prays that the order of the CWT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the WTO/AC/DCWT be restored. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any grounds or add a new ground which may be necessary. In this case a noticed u/s 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 was issued to the company as the AO was of the opinion that taxable wealth had escaped assessment. The assessee filed its return of Wealth Tax on 18. 05. 2011 declaring the net Wealth of Rs. Nil. The AO issued notice u/s 16( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was not tenable, that the assessee owned property at Veera Desai Road, Andheri, that it had received share application money and share premium amounting to ₹ 1 Crore and ₹ 2. 19 Crores respectively for acquisition of immovable property, that for receiving premium there must be justification in the form of asset that the urban land owned by the assessee was only valuable for the purpose of fixing share premium, that the urban land owned by it was liable to Wealth Tax, that in absence of valuation details of the share application money and the share premium totaling to ₹ 3. 19 Crores was to be treated as value of the urban land owned by the assessee. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO assessee filed an appeal before th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court delivered in the case of Prabhakar Kishore Kunde(194 Taxman 306). With reference to ground no. 3 about compensation receiv - ed by the assessee, he stated that issue was covered in favour of the assessee by the order of the Hon'ble High Court Punjab Haryana delivered in the case of Perminder Singh (232 CTR 195). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material before us. We find that the issue about inclusion of a plot of land has been dealt by the FAA after considering the relevant provisions of the law. The Act has provided exemption to certain assets to be included for determining payable wealth tax. We find that Hon ble Delhi High Court has;with regard to assets of such category, in the case of D. C. M. Ltd ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t could not be an asset as defined under section 2(ea) of the Act. The result thereof would be not to treat the same as net wealth of an assessee for the purposes of the provisions of the Wealth-tax Act. The first appellate authority had proceeded on the assumption that now the orders of the Supreme Court dated May 1, 1991, qua redevelopment had been permitted of the mill area to flatted factory complex and group housing complex. Leave was also granted to demolish the existing building. It is not in dispute before us that till date no permission/approval has been granted by the appropriate to the assessee to raise the building in consonance with the plans and as such the old structure existing is not in conformity with law and had not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt that the land could not be regarded as urban land because no construction was permissible on the land at the relevant time relating to the assessment years 1993-94 and onwards. Accordingly, the land which fell within the exception would have to be excluded from the ambit and scope of the expression urban land and, therefore, such land would not be covered by the expression assets as defined in section 2(ea) of the Act. Therefore, such land would not be treated as net wealth of an assessee for the purposes of the provisions of the Act. From the above it is clear that if on a plot of land construction of a building is not permissible under any law then the said plot of land could not form part of urban land or the asset to be ta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
