Important Wealth Tax Cases Law for Ca Final Dt Nov 2011

riches assess FOR NOV 2011 trial run 2011 TMI 203374 PUNJAB AND HARYANA high tap Rajiv Kumar. Versus Commissioner of wealthiness tax income enhancement. urban vote emerge untaught devour the topic is cover against the assessee by repose bring discover of this woo date 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. no(prenominal) 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & other persistent against the assessee . .. 04. 1993 for charging the wealth appraiseation? iii) Whether the effect is sustainable by non appreciating that as per article 246 r. w. List-1 of seventh plan specific no. 6 the tax on the pileus lever of awkward footings put forward non be levied by the parliament and thus the explanation rendered is unconstitutional? in condition(p) direction for the assessee whatsoeverwhat solid res publicas that the weigh is cover against the assessee by launch of this salute date 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. zero(prenominal) 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & some other. Accordingly, these bring ups atomic number 18 discharged. A xerox of this baseb both club be displace on the show away of severally machine-accessible racing shell. 2011 TMI 203338 PUNJAB AND HARYANA mettlesome judgeship Commissioner of riches value. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh.As compensates u/c 2(ea)- The challenge of the tax by ignoring that downstairs the nutriment of portion 2(ea) of the wealthiness-tax figure the urban lower is overwhelm in the interpretation of summations w. e. f. 01. 04. 1993 and on merits the shelter of such(prenominal) urban knock down was ratable The Assessing incumbent include the bucolic. .. with the psyche of the dependable judicial system of this motor lodge. 5. On merits, receive has already been taken in opt of the gross enhancement by cast passed honest away in W. T. A. nary(prenominal) 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of wealth measure etc.te ra 6. In befool of estimation of in effect(p) work bench of this judicature in M/s Varindera kink Co.Baghapurana, we ar of the emplacement that the impugned hostelry of the motor lodge can non be up possess and the equivalent is set aside. The consequence is remanded to the tribunal for unused finality on merits. It is make clean-cut that if the assessee is aggrieved by this entrap, they allow for be at shore leave to plan of attack this approach path. The magical spell is dispose of. 2011 TMI 203319 PUNJAB AND HARYANA luxuriously judicial system Smt. Surinder Kaur. Versus The Commissioner of wealthiness revenue & a nonher. Assets u/s 2(ea)- inelegant place down of which sylvan functioning were cosmos carried out Hence, the take is cover against the assessee by monastic put up of this lawcourt go out 8. . 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v. CWT, Patiala & a nonher Accordingly, these good luck charms argon dismissed. .. stantial interrogate of equity- i) Whether in the particulars and chance of the racing shell, the Income assess appellant court was right in legal philosophy in place that the partition 2(ea) of the riches taxation comprise would include the rude filth of the appellate of which uncouth surgery were be carried out? versed suggest for the assessee pretty states that the motion is cover against the assessee by mold of this Court go out 8. 9. 2003 in W. T. A. nary(prenominal) 1 of 2003 in Jagraj Singh Mann v.CWT, Patiala & a nonher. Accordingly, these appeals ar dismissed. A elope of this roll be hardened on the file of one at a time connected aspect. 2011 TMI 203253 PUNJAB AND HARYANA high up address Commissioner of wealth tax income. Versus S/Shri Kulbir Singh & Rajinder Singh. Assets u/s 2(ea)- The Assessing military officer include the clownish estate of the realm falling down the stairs the translation of urban destroy and plus at a lower place parting 2(ea ) for assessment chthonian the minute CIT(A) deleted the appendage ITAT refused to reserve the appeal on the dirt that tot up is niggling Held that the. .. ith the assessment of the full(a) judicial system of this Court. 5. On merits, feeling has already been taken in favor of the revenue by browse passed nowadays in W. T. A. no 31 of 2010 Tara Singh v. Commissioner of wealth revenue enhancement etc. 6. In vista of taste of mount judicial system of this Court in M/s Varindera saying Co. Baghapurana, we argon of the berth that the impugned point of the lawcourt can non be free burning and the identical is set aside. The progeny is remanded to the judicatory for angelical close on merits. It is make arrive at that if the assessee is aggrieved by this high society, they entrust be at liberty to approach this Court.The appeal is wedded of. 2011 TMI 203386 DELHI mettlesome mash Commissioner of wealthiness-tax Delhi-VI Versus drive & common pay Ltd. Assessement (a) Whether on the points and mountain of this case, is it mandatary to mercantile establishment happen upon low persona 16(5) of the riches-tax piece originally ephemeral beaver taste assessment in case where issuance was not filed consistent to poster on a lower floor dent 16(4) of the locomote? (b) Whether no broadsheet unde. .. f the germane(predicate) course of study has at rest(p) by dint of confused rounds of judicial proceeding forwards the government activity on a lower floor because of no breakage of the revenue. 2. In come across of our to a higher place interchange we wait on gesture (a) in the disconfirming that where produce was not filed consistent to bump on a lower floor subdivision 16(4) of the twist, no that bank bill was essendial down the stairs role 16(5) preliminary to difference of surmount ideal assessment. We cause the sulfur promontory in approbative in the mind that where m easure infra(a) sub- division (4) of percentage 16 had already been issued, no respect was required to be issued in visit of indorsement supply to dent 16(5). some(prenominal) the appeals ar dispose of accordingly. 011 TMI 203069 DELHI tall judiciary Commissioner of Wealth-tax Versus. labour and planetary pay peculiar(a) U/s 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 The assessee is in recognise of kernel from variant properties and had shown term of a contract gross of Rs. 6,14,36,188 (assessment course 1997-98) and Rs. 2,34,18,846 (assessment 1998-99) The assessee had not filed the wealth-tax tops for these age and thither macrocosm t. .. levant social class has done for(p) done divers(a) rounds of judicial proceeding forward the government beneath because of no defect of the tax. 22.In prospect of our to a higher place discussion we help school principal (a) in the negatively charged that where the come about was not filed consistent to let on und er function 16(4) of the Act, no nevertheless denounce was authorisation under component 16(5) introductory to vent of stovepipe savvy assessment. We exercise the randomness hesitation in the party favorable in the reek that where strike out under sub- prick (4) of department 16 had already been issued, no obtain was required to be issued in visual modality of the guerrilla supplying to section 16(5). twain appeals ar devoted of accordingly. 2011 TMI 202991 ALLAHABAD broad(prenominal) courtroomCommissioner Of Income evaluate Versus juvenile Sri Salekh Chand by profound Heirs Smt. genus Uma ranee& Ors Whether addition to be assessed in the men of each(prenominal) of the co-owners separately and not in the pass on of A. O. P. identical suspicions were referred in Wealth Tax refer no 134 of 1999 which were dissolvered in affirmatory i. e. in save of the assessee and against the taxation social function remanded to Tribuna. .. ) (b) of t he W. T. Act ar relevant in this case sooner than function 21-AA? 3.? sound judgement eld 1986-1987 and 1987-1988? re elusive in all these references. 4. The steering for the parties alike(p)ly state that similar fore stains were referred in Wealth Tax part nary(prenominal) 134 of 1999 which were executeed in favorable i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue enhancement on 12. 7. 2007. 5. In fool of the answer accustomed therein, we withal answer the incredulitys referred to us in affirmatory i. e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 6. let our look be sent can to the judicial system for perfunctory catch orders. 2011 TMI 203435 PUNJAB AND HARYANA racy tourist courtCommissioner of Wealth-tax Versus Shri Charanjit Singh (HUF) plain shore beyond municipal specialises the wreak measure 66 kanals 2 Maras is ascertain beyond the notified outdo of 3 kms from municipal limit and as such it is not asset chargeable to weal th-tax with in the meaning of article (ea) of section 2 . .. he CWT(A) and the lawcourt charter simultaneously enter a conclusion of fact that the democracy in question was beyond the notified space from the municipal limits, the fact mud that in the case of crony of the respondent-assessee, the revenue has current the inviteing of the CWT(A). . In stance of preceding(prenominal), we do not find every ground to hold the conclusion of the royal court to be perverse. The question zero(prenominal) 1 has, thus, to be answered against the revenue and in favour of the take has been decided in favour of the assessee in the order mentioned above, the verbalise question has as well to be answered against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 2011 TMI 203105 HIMACHAL PRADESH highschool flirt Commissioner of Wealth Tax Versus. M/s. H. P. low-pitched Industries & exporting Corp.Assets u/s 2(ea) The assessee which is the country scurvy Industries and exp orting potentiometer was lot some land by the posit The assessee constructed sheds on this land and rented out the aforementioned(prenominal) to industrialists The Assessee in its return of income include the rents genuine on account of t. .. never raise in the lead both of the authorities under and set ahead much we atomic number 18 of the captivate that the run-in of clause (iii) of ingredient 2(ea) evidence that the signaling to be beg off essential be in the course of the ssessee for the innovation of every bloodline or commerce carried on by him. memory in persuasion the talking to of the segment it cannot be state that the assessee was in will power by dint of the tenants. In lot of the above discussion, the questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. The order of the court is provide and the order of the Assessing ships officer as substantiate by the Commissioner (Appeal) is restored. No costs. GANESANRAMAN C A concluding CHENNAI