9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 51X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds enhancement in the value of land owned by the firm where the appellant is a partner which enhancement is on an arbitrary basis. 2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in holding that the valuation of land has to be made in accordance with Rule 20 of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. 3. That the Ld. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and circumstances of the case in not valuing the interest of the appellant in the firm in accordance with Par E comprising of Rule 15,16 read with Rule 14 of Schedule III of the Wealth T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts and circumstances of that case were entirely different. The Ld. AR submitted that the land in question is business asset of the Firm and up to the A.Y 2004-05 values shown by the assessee was accepted by the Department. In support he furnished a chart to make clear the stand of Department on the issue in different assessment years. The Ld. A.R pointed out further that the issue raised is also covered by the order dated 28/6/2013 of the Tribunal in the case of the CIT Vs. Sahara India Finance and Investment Ltd in WTA Nos. 6, 7 & 14/Del/2012 (A.Ys 2005-06, 2007-08 & 2008-09). 4. The Ld. DR on the other hand tried to justify the first appellate order and in support he also referred contents of Para No. 5.4 of the first appellate ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scussed these facts and submission of the assessee before coming to the above conclusion in this regard in Para No. 5.5 of the order. In the case of Sahara India Finance and Investment Ltd. (Supra) following its earlier order dated 14/1/2000 in the case of Sahara India Finance and Investment Ltd itself, for the A.Ys 1991-92 to 1993-94 the Tribunal has noted as under:- "12. We find that the ITAT in the case of M/s Sahara India Savings & Investment Corporation Ltd. Vs. ACIT for A.Yrs 1991-92 to 1993-94 vide order dated 14/1/2000 has adjudicated the issue as under:- "12. We have heard the Ld. Departmental Representative a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the Assessing Officer was not justified in determining the fair market value for the purpose of wealth tax." 13. After considering the rival submissions facts and circumstances of the case, and provision of Schedule III, we are inclined to agree with the submissions of the counsel for the assessee that the assets being business assets, its value was to be determined as per Rule 14 and not as per Rule 20 of Schedule III. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CWT (A), which is confirmed. 6. The Tribunal has also noted the decision dated 21/9/2010 of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Sahara India Savings and Corporation Ltd Vs. ACIT for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
