Managing Director's Residence Exempt from Wealth Tax under Finance Act Section 40(3)(vib)

The High Court clarified that the assessee was entitled to exemption for the managing director's residence under section 40(3)(vib) of the Finance Act. The Court upheld the exemption for properties at Door Nos. 123 and 124, emphasizing that leasing out properties as part of business activity entitles exemption from wealth-tax. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee due to the insignificant tax effect in each case, dismissing the Revenue's appeals without costs.

---

---

Issues:
1. Exemption of property at No. 20, Hunters Road, Madras from wealth-tax under section 40(3)(vib) of the Finance Act, 1983.
2. Inclusion of the value of the property at Door Nos. 123 and 124 in the assessee's net wealth.

Analysis:

1. The assessee, engaged in printing and property leasing, claimed exemption from wealth-tax for properties leased out and used for residential purposes. The Revenue rejected the exemption claim, leading to an assessment. The Commissioner of Income-tax accepted the exemption for the managing director's residence but remitted the matter of the other properties for further consideration. The Tribunal upheld the exemption for all properties. However, the High Court found that the provision for exemption under section 40(3)(vib) of the Finance Act was misinterpreted. The Court clarified that the equity shareholding requirement applies only to employees, not directors or managers. Therefore, the assessee was entitled to exemption for the managing director's residence.

2. Regarding the properties at Door Nos. 123 and 124, the Commissioner and Tribunal accepted the assessee's arguments based on the nature of the premises and commercial exploitation. The Court upheld these decisions, emphasizing that leasing out properties as part of the business activity entitles the assessee to exemption from wealth-tax. The Court dismissed the Revenue's appeals, ruling in favor of the assessee due to the insignificant tax effect in each case. Consequently, both substantial questions of law were answered against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, leading to the dismissal of the appeals without costs.

---