Business use exemption for urban land failed where the partnership firm, not the Hindu undivided family, carried on the business.

Urban land owned by a Hindu undivided family did not qualify for exemption from additional wealth-tax because the statutory condition requires the assessee itself to carry on the business or profession. A partnership firm conducting the nursery business was a separate assessable entity, and the fact that coparceners were partners did not make the firm's business that of the family. Mere use of family-owned land by the firm, or indirect benefit to the family, was insufficient to satisfy the exemption condition. The land therefore remained liable to additional wealth-tax.

---

---

Issues: Whether urban land owned by a Hindu undivided family could escape additional wealth-tax on the footing that the business conducted on it was in substance the business of the Hindu undivided family, though the business was actually carried on by a partnership firm.

Analysis: The exemption from additional wealth-tax applies only when the urban asset is used for the assessee's own business or profession. The firm carrying on the nursery business was a distinct assessable entity, separate from the Hindu undivided family, and the family itself could not be a partner in the firm. Mere use of the family-owned land by the firm, or the fact that coparceners were partners in the firm, did not establish that the business was carried on by the Hindu undivided family or for its benefit. The statutory condition requires the business to be carried on by the assessee itself, not by individual members or by a firm in which they participate.

Conclusion: The business of the firm could not be treated as the business of the Hindu undivided family, and the land did not qualify for exemption from additional wealth-tax.

---