9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 351X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. - TAX APPEAL NO. 117 of 2004 With TAX APPEAL NO. 1510 of 2005 TO TAX APPEAL NO. 1511 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 4-7-2016 - MR. KS JHAVERI AND MR. G.R.UDHWANI, JJ. FOR THE APPELLANT : MR PRANAV G DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR THE OPPONENT : MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) Tax Appeal No.117 of 2004 challenges the order dated 12/09/2003 in WTA No.5/RJT/1999 for the assessment year 1996-97, whereby the Tribunal has confirmed the order passed by the CIT (A) and came to be admitted on the following questions of law: (1) Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and in fact in holding that urban land as defined in clause (b) of Explanation 1 to Sec.2(ea) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheme, the lease was considered to be the assets. He has further contended that order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous and therefore the question raised in this appeal may be answered in favour of the department. 4. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the assessee has contended that the order passed by the CIT (A) and the Tribunal do not call for interference since under the scheme this is not included and he has relied upon the paragraph No.6 of the order passed by the ITAT, which reads as under: 6. We have duly considered the rival contentions, the material on record, the legal provisions and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the both the sides. The main contentions of the ld. Counsel are twofold. Firstly, that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of leasehold rights 'was brought on the statute book only with effect from assessment year 1997-98, whereas We are concerned in the present appeal with assessment year 1996-97. Therefore, the extended meaning of ownership given in section 4(8) cannot apply to the facts of the case on hand for the year under consideration. in this connection, we agree with the views expressed by the CWT(A) that here belongingness can mean only ownership because under the new definition of term assets , any other right otherwise than by way of ownership is beyond the scope of the definition. The CWT(A) has elaborately dealt with this issue in his order with which we are in agreement. There is no other clause in section 2(ea) within which the 235% an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
