9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 836X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or agricultural purposes cannot be held as a capital asset for the purpose of Wealth tax Act. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue. - W.T.A.No.1/Vizag/2017 And C.O. No.30/Vizag/2017 - - - Dated:- 11-7-2018 - SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri M.N. Murthy Naik, DR For The Respondent : Shri K. Siva Ram Kumar, AR ORDER PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member: This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Vijayawada vide appeal No.70/CIT(A)/VJA/2014-15 dated 22.09.2016 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. All the grounds of app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the Municipal limits of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation. Thus it is a capital asset as per Sec.2(ea)(v) of the Act. As per the copy of Adangal, appellant is the owner of the asset in R.S.No.1 12-1 (extent 0.50 acres) which is fit for cultivation. As per the certificate of V.R.O., the land has been agricultural land from 2004-05 to 2015-16 crop seasons. Appellant has been cultivating paddy in the said land. Appellant further admitted agricultural income in IT return for Assessment Year 200910 and Assessment Year 2010-11 in respect of this land also. In view of the above, the land is not an asset assessable for Wealth Tax purposes as per extant provisions for the relevant Assessment Year (i.e.) Explanation (1)(b)(0) of Sec.2(ea) of Wealt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icultural land. For ready reference, we extract the relevant paragraph of the order of the Tribunal, which reads as under: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. The assessee's case is that both the pieces of land located at Enikepadu and Nidamanuru are agricultural lands and exempt u/s 2(ca) of Wealth Tax Act The revenue's case is that both the lands are urban lands, hence not exempt u/s 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act. The revenue has argued that the amendment is introduced w.eL 2013, therefore the CWT(A) has misinterpreted the Clause (1)(b) of Explanation (1) to Section 2(ea) of Wealth Tax Act, hence argued that the land in question is subject to wealth tax. There is no dispute with regard to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
