Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2753 2008 SLD 2753 (2008) 296 ITR 148 (2009) 176 TAXMAN 273
Madras High Court
TAX CASE APPEAL NOS. 29 TO 32 OF 2007â-  JULY 2, 2007
P.D. DINAKARAN AND P.P.S., JANARTHANA RAJA, JJ.
J. Narayanaswamy for the Appellant.

Commissioner of Wealth-tax* v. VGP Housing (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 7, read with rules 3, 4, 5, 8 and 20 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - Valuation of assets - Immovable property - Assessee was dealing in purchase and sale of lands - It did not file return on ground that it was not subject to wealth-tax - Later, assessment was reopened and Assessing Officer included value of land in net wealth of assessee - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) held that assessee was entitled to exemption from wealth-tax - On revenue's appeal, Tribunal held that assets could not be excluded from levy of wealth-tax in view of provisions of section 40 of Finance Act, 1983 - While allowing appeal, Tribunal also gave a direction to Assessing Officer to value impugned property in view of rules 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule III to Act - On instant appeal, revenue's apprehension was that Tribunal had given only a specific direction to Assessing Officer to apply only rules 3, 4 and 5 and, thus, discretionary powers of Assessing Officer were restricted by said specific remand - It became apparent from reading Schedule III that Assessing Officer should consider and apply rules 3, 4 and 5, and if he is of opinion that it is not practicable to apply rules 3, 4 and 5, he can rely on rule 8 or rule 20 and value of property can be determined in manner laid down under rule 8 or rule 20 - Whether in view of above, there was no restriction for Assessing Officer to apply relevant rules for determining value of immovable property and, hence, apprehension of revenue had no basis - Held, yes JUDGMENT P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, J. - These appeals are filed under section 27A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the revenue, against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai Bench "B", Chennai, in W.T.A. Nos. 2/Mad./2000, 83/Mad./96, 84/Mad./96 and 146/Mad./95, dated 17-2-2006, raising the following common substantial question of law : "Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to invoke specific rules 3, 4 and 5 of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act when the transaction of lease is between sister concerns, without giving the Assessing Officer the option of applying rules 8 and 20, even…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492