9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exigible for wealth tax. However, only the undivided share in the land attributable to the residential flat shall be exigible for wealth tax which the Ld. WTO shall estimate after obtaining the value from the Stamp Valuation Authority of the State Government and by considering all the relevant factors and thereafter arrive at the taxable wealth. It is ordered accordingly. share of land at Jubilee Hills - We are of the considered view that the ad-hoc estimate of the market value of the immovable asset is not justifiable. Further, the unfinished building cannot be treated as a building exigible to wealth tax. However, the urban land is exigible to wealth tax as per section 2(ea)(v) of the Act. Accordingly, the Ld. WTO is hereby direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile of Ld. WTO for de novo consideration on the issue. Land at L.B. Naga - We are of the considered view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to justify his claim with cogent evident before the Ld. WTO on this issue also. Accordingly, we hereby remit back this issue to the file of Ld. WTO for de novo consideration. Motor Car - On perusing the issue, we are of the view that the Ld. WTO has rightly assed the motor car to wealth tax because neither the assessee is in the business of running motor car nor hiring them. Further the motor car is not held by the assessee as stock in trade. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. WTO on this issue. - WTA No.57/Hyd/2017 - - - Dated:- 25-2- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see is an individual who failed to file his wealth tax return for the AY 2009-10. Subsequently, it was revealed that the assessee possessed assets which are assessable under Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Thereafter, in response to the letter addressed by the Ld. WTO the assessee filed his return of wealth on 7/2/2014 declaring net wealth at ₹ 26,700/-. Thereafter, on perusing the records, the Ld. WTO arrived at the net taxable wealth of the assessee at ₹ 3,28,44,241 and after granting basic exemption of ₹ 15 lakhs, the Ld. WTO arrived at the net taxable wealth at ₹ 3,13,71,041/-. On appeal, the Ld. CWT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by stating that the assessee had not submitted sufficient evidence to substantiate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rity of the State Government and by considering all the relevant factors and thereafter arrive at the taxable wealth. It is ordered accordingly. (2) share of land at Jubilee Hills: The assessee had explained before the Ld. WTO that though permission was obtained on 11/1/2001 for construction on the above-mentioned land, the construction was still in progress and therefore, the building could not be let out. However, the Ld. WTO opined that the construction of the building was completed and therefore does not fall under the exemption provided U/s. 2(ea) of the Act. Thereafter he estimated the value of the immovable asset at ₹ 51,33,000/-. As held hereinabove, we are of the considered view that the ad-hoc estimate of the market ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the assessee had also conducted in such a manner so as to establish that the land was purchased for the purpose of business by obtaining permission for construction from GHMC. In such situation, merely because the permission for granting construction from GHMC was applied on 25/7/2009 it is not appropriate to treat the urban land as asset U/s. 2(ea)(i)(v) of the Act because the moment the land is purchased for trading it has to be treated as stock-in-trade and section 2(ea)(i)(2) vividly exempts stock in trade within the purview of assets for the purpose of computing taxable wealth. Hence, we do not subscribe to the view of the Ld.WTO. Accordingly, we hereby direct the Ld. WTO to exclude the land at Kapra for the purpose of deter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the other hand pointed out that the assessee has not produced any cogent evidence to justify his claim. Considering the arguments of both the parties, we are of the considered view that the assessee should be provided with one more opportunity to justify his claim with cogent evident before the Ld. WTO on this issue also. Accordingly, we hereby remit back this issue to the file of Ld. WTO for de novo consideration. (6) Motor Car: The Ld. WTO has assessed to wealth tax the motor vehicle / Swift car owned by the assessee by adopting WDV at ₹ 2,62,981/- in accordance with section 2(ea)(ii) of the Act. The claim of the assessee is that the motor car is used for the business of the assessee and therefore exempt from wealth tax. On per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
