9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of ‘urban land’ amended by the Finance Act, 2013, w.e.f. 01/04/1993. - No additions - Decided against the revenue. - WTA Nos. 41 & 42/Hyd/2015 - - - Dated:- 5-2-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member And Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For the Petitioner : Shri B. Kurmi Naidu For the Respondent : Shri C.P. Rama Swami ORDER Per S. Rifaur Rahman, A. M. Both these appeals are preferred by the Revenue against separate orders of CWT(A) - VI, Hyderabad, for the AYs 2008-09 and 2009-10 wherein the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal, which are common in both the appeals: 1. The ld. CWT(A) erred both in law and on facts of the case. 2. The ld. CWT(A) erred in applying the order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zed for exemption u/s 54 of IT Act which was upheld by ITAT, Hyderabad. Thus, as the said property is a house eligible for exemption u/s 5(vi) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1961. 2.2 As regards the lands at Kokapet and Madeenaguda, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that agricultural lands admeasuring ac. 0.16.5 guntas in survey no. 37/P situated at Kokapet village, Rajendra Nagar Taluq, Ranga Reddy Dt. and Ac. 0.15 Guntas in Survey No. 97 and 98 Madeenaguda Village, Serilingampally Mandal, RR Dist. which are used for carrying on agricultural operations by way of growing vegetables. Hence, these lands are not covered under the definition of assets as per sub-clause (i)(a) to 2nd proviso to clause (iii) of section 2(e)(2) of the WT Act. 2.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... WT Act. In view of the above, rejecting the claim of the assessee that the said properties were agricultural lands, brought the same to wealth tax, by treating it as asset . 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CWT(A). 4. As regards the property at Jubilee Hills, the CWT(A() following the decision of the ITAT held that it is a residential house property and directed the AO to delete the addition made, as the ITAT held that the said property was a residential house for all practical purposes. 4.1 As regards the agricultural lands at Kokapet and Madeenaguda, the CWT(A) directed the AO to delete the addition by holding that the two properties are not urban land and exempt from wealth tax. The observations of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment , after the expiry of the period specified under the said sanction and to deal with it on merits as per law. 05.4.2 There is nothing on record to state that the proper ties in quest ion were not agricultural lands and were not used for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the land classified as agricultural land and used for the purpose of agriculture would not fall within the meaning of asset and would be exempt from wealth tax. In view of it, it is held that the two proper ties are not urban land and are exempt from wealth tax. The addition is deleted. 5. We have heard the submissions of both the parties and perused the material on record as well as the orders of revenue authorities. As regards the property at Jubilee H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
