Just a moment...
Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review
The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.
• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required
Step 2 – Draft Generation
Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.
• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review. 
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the investment in an incomplete and unfinished factory building was liable to be included in the assessee's wealth under section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, and whether refusal to make a reference under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, was justified.
Analysis: Clause (vi) of section 40(3) applied only to a building or part thereof that was capable of being used by the assessee for the specified purposes. The building in question was under construction and remained incomplete and unfinished in the relevant assessment year. On the facts found, it was not capable of any use by the assessee. An unfinished structure, not yet fit for use as a factory building, did not fall within the statutory description of an includible asset.
Conclusion: The investment was not excludible from the scope of the relevant wealth-tax provision on the ground urged by the assessee; the Tribunal was correct in declining to refer the question, and the petition failed.