Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        2001 (1) TMI 206 - AT - Wealth-tax

        📋
        Contents
        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

        ITAT rules land not 'Urban Land', excludes Rs. 2 lakhs from net wealth. The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals and allowed the assessees' cross objections, directing the deletion of additions made by the Department. The ITAT ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
                            Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.

                              ITAT rules land not 'Urban Land', excludes Rs. 2 lakhs from net wealth.

                              The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeals and allowed the assessees' cross objections, directing the deletion of additions made by the Department. The ITAT held that the 28 acres of land in question did not qualify as 'Urban Land' for assessment years from 1993-94 onwards. Additionally, the right to receive Rs. 2 lakhs was not considered part of the net wealth unless it was in cash with the assessee.




                              Issues Involved:
                              1. Determination of the value of 28 acres of land at Bangalore Palace and Chamundi Vihar, Mysore, for wealth-tax purposes.
                              2. Inclusion of compensation receivable from the government under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976, in the taxable wealth.
                              3. Applicability of the amended definition of 'Urban Land' under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, effective from 1-4-1993, on the assessment years in question.

                              Detailed Analysis:

                              1. Determination of the Value of Land:
                              The primary issue revolves around the valuation of 28 acres of land at Bangalore Palace and Chamundi Vihar, Mysore, for wealth-tax purposes. The Assessing Officer initially assessed the value at Rs. 6,83,40,900, while the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) [CWT(A)] directed the value to be Rs. 2 lakhs, the maximum compensation receivable from the government under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. The ITAT upheld the CWT(A)'s decision, noting that similar cases involving members of the royal family had established Rs. 2 lakhs as the assessable amount.

                              2. Inclusion of Compensation Receivable in Taxable Wealth:
                              The revenue contended that the compensation receivable from the government should be included in the taxable wealth. The CWT(A) had included Rs. 2 lakhs in the net wealth of the assessee, relying on a similar case. However, the assessee argued that the right to receive compensation does not constitute 'Taxable Wealth' under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act. The ITAT agreed with the assessee, stating that the right to receive Rs. 2 lakhs does not fall under the definition of assets as per the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, effective from the assessment year 1993-94 onwards.

                              3. Applicability of the Amended Definition of 'Urban Land':
                              The ITAT examined the amended definition of 'Urban Land' under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, effective from 1-4-1993. The definition excludes land on which construction is not permissible under any law in force. The ITAT scrutinized the relevant provisions of the Karnataka Parks, Play-Fields, and Open Spaces (Preservation and Regulation) Act, 1985, and concluded that the 28 acres of land in question falls under this exclusion, as construction is prohibited. Therefore, the land does not come within the purview of taxable wealth for the assessment years under consideration.

                              Conclusion:
                              The ITAT dismissed the appeals by the revenue and allowed the cross objections filed by the assessees. It directed the WTO to delete the addition made in respect of the value of the land and the amount receivable as alleged by the Department. The ITAT held that the land in question does not fall under the definition of 'Urban Land' for the assessment years 1993-94 onwards, and the right to receive Rs. 2 lakhs is not assessable as part of the net wealth unless it is part of cash in hand with the assessee.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found