9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om a reading of the entire Section 2 (ea) WTA that the legislative intent was not to restrict the benefit of exemption any particular type of commercial establishments or complexes. By reading such a restrictions into the said clause, the Court would be writing into Section 2 (ea) WTA something which is not there. Bombay Bench of ITAT has sought to suggest that a commercial establishment means a building comprising more than one establishment meant for commercial purpose and having the infrastructure and ancillary facilities and establishments such as banking, financial institution, supermarket, bar etc. The Court is unable to find any such qualification attaching to the expression 'Commercial Establishments or Complexes' in Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 013, 30/Del/ 2013, 31/Del/ 2013 and 32/Del/ 2013 for the assessment years ('AY's') 2004-05 to 2009-10. 4. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue is whether the ITAT was correct in holding, in the facts of the case, that the properties of the Respondent/Assessee at M-7, Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Sardar Mohan Singh Building, Connaught Lane, New Delhi were 'Commercial Establishments or Complexes' and therefore outside the purview of 'assets' under Section 2 (ea) (i) (5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (WTA)? 5. The Assessee classified the three properties belonging to it in the following manner: (a) 9, Friends Colony (West), New Delhi (residential) (b) M-7, Connaught Circus, New Delhi (commercial) and (c) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Mr Sanjay Kumar learned counsel for the Revenue, that the expression 'commercial establishments or complexes' should be understood only in the plural and not in the singular. In other words, in order to fall outside the purview of 'assets' under Section 2 (ea) (i) (5) WTA, the commercial building had to be let out to several tenants and not just one.. 10. The Court is unable to agree with the above submission. It is obvious from a reading of the entire Section 2 (ea) WTA that the legislative intent was not to restrict the benefit of exemption any particular type of commercial establishments or complexes. By reading such a restrictions into the said clause, the Court would be writing into Section 2 (ea) WTA something which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
