Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Court rules in favor of assessee on exemption, debt liability, and agricultural land exclusion under Wealth-tax Act

        Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus EK. Mathew

        Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus EK. Mathew - [1994] 207 ITR 71, 113 CTR 336, 73 TAXMANN 623 Issues Involved:
        1. Exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act.
        2. Deduction of debt liability to the Federal Bank in computing the net wealth of a firm.
        3. Applicability of section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act to debts secured on agricultural land.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        Issue 1: Exemption under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act
        The first issue was whether the assessee is entitled to an exemption of Rs. 1,50,000 under section 5(1)(iva) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal had allowed this exemption, which was disputed by the Revenue. The court referred to the Full Bench decision in CWT v. Smt. Keathikamal Kumari Varma [1989] 179 ITR 543, which held that the value of a partner's share in agricultural lands is includible in the net wealth, and the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iva) up to Rs. 1,50,000. Therefore, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

        Issue 2: Deduction of Debt Liability to the Federal Bank in Computing the Net Wealth of a Firm
        The second issue was whether the entire liability to the Federal Bank should be allowed against the net wealth of the firm in the computation under rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules. The court examined sections 3 and 4 of the Wealth-tax Act and rule 2 of the Wealth-tax Rules, which provide that the net wealth of the firm has to be determined by deducting all enforceable debts. The court noted that the firm is not the assessee; the net wealth of the firm is calculated to determine the value of a partner's interest. The court cited the Full Bench decision in CWT v. Smt. Keathikamal Kumari Varma, which held that all debts, including those excluded under section 2(m)(ii), must be considered in determining the net wealth of the firm. The court also referenced the Division Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1973] 90 ITR 418, which supported this view. Consequently, the court answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

        Issue 3: Applicability of Section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act to Debts Secured on Agricultural Land
        The third issue revolved around whether the loan taken by the firm from the Federal Bank, secured on agricultural land, should be excluded under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act. Section 2(m)(ii) excludes debts secured on properties not chargeable to wealth-tax. The court discussed whether agricultural land is chargeable to wealth-tax. The court noted that agricultural land is chargeable to wealth-tax, but an exemption up to Rs. 1,50,000 is provided under section 5(1)(iva) read with section 5(1A). The court considered the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in CIT v. K. S. Vaidyanathan, which had differing views on partial exemption and the deductibility of debts. The court agreed with the dissenting opinion of Balasubrahmanyan J., which held that section 2(m)(ii) does not provide for partial abatement of debts. The court also agreed with the Bombay High Court's decision in CWT v. Vasantkumar Govindji Kotak [1990] 186 ITR 91, which supported the view that agricultural land is chargeable to wealth-tax. Therefore, the court concluded that the debt in question is not incurred in relation to a property not chargeable to wealth-tax and answered this question in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee.

        Conclusion:
        The court answered all three questions in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee. The judgment affirmed that the assessee is entitled to the exemption under section 5(1)(iva), the entire debt liability to the Federal Bank should be deducted in computing the net wealth of the firm, and the debt secured on agricultural land does not fall under section 2(m)(ii) of the Wealth-tax Act.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found