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

        <h1>Tribunal upholds CIT(Appeals) valuation, rejects factory building value in taxable wealth.</h1> <h3>Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax.</h3> Hemla Embroidery Mills (P.) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax. - ITD 066, 363, TTJ 063, 128, Issues Involved:1. Exemption of land leased out to M/s. R. Narayan Dying & Printing Mills Ltd. under Clause (VI) to sub-section (3) of section 40 of Finance Act, 1983.2. Exemption of building valued at Rs. 3,50,000 under Clause (VI) of Sub-section (3) of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983.3. Valuation of land at Rs. 9,00,000 instead of book value as per Rule 14(2)(ii) of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.4. Valuation of building at Rs. 3,50,000 instead of its written down value as per Rule 14(2)(i) of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.5. Consideration of valuation report received after completion of assessment.6. Market value determination of land appurtenant to the factory building.7. Valuation of factory building at Rs. 3,50,000 instead of Rs. 10,00,000.Detailed Analysis:1. Exemption of Land Leased Out:The assessee contended that the land leased to M/s. R. Narayan Dying & Printing Mills Ltd. should be exempt under Clause (VI) to sub-section (3) of section 40 of Finance Act, 1983. The CIT(Appeals) disagreed, stating the land was not appurtenant to the factory building and hence not exempt. This ground was not pressed by the assessee's counsel and was thus rejected.2. Exemption of Building Valued at Rs. 3,50,000:The CIT(Appeals) held that the building valued at Rs. 3,50,000 was not a factory building exempt under Clause (VI) of Sub-section (3) of Section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The assessee argued that the building was transferred to M/s. R. Narayan Dying & Printing Mills Ltd., but the CIT(Appeals) and the Tribunal upheld that without a registered sale deed, the building remained assessable in the hands of the appellant-company.3. Valuation of Land at Rs. 9,00,000:The assessee argued the land should be valued at book value as per Rule 14(2)(ii) of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The CIT(Appeals) valued the land at Rs. 9,00,000 using the rent capitalisation method. The Tribunal found the valuation reasonable and justified, rejecting the assessee's contention.4. Valuation of Building at Rs. 3,50,000:The assessee contended the building should be valued at its written down value as per Rule 14(2)(i) of Schedule III to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The CIT(Appeals) valued the building at Rs. 3,50,000, which the Tribunal upheld, dismissing the assessee's argument.5. Consideration of Valuation Report Post-Assessment:The Revenue argued that the valuation report received after the completion of assessment should be considered, and the value determined by the Valuation Officer should be adopted. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(Appeals)'s view that there is no provision in the Wealth Tax Act allowing the Assessing Officer to adopt post-assessment valuation reports, referencing the ITAT Chandigarh decision in IAC v. Amrinder Singh.6. Market Value Determination of Land:The Revenue contested the CIT(Appeals)'s direction to take the market value of land at Rs. 9,00,000 instead of Rs. 27,00,000. The Tribunal found the CIT(Appeals)'s valuation using a multiplier of 12.5 times based on rent capitalisation method reasonable and justified, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.7. Valuation of Factory Building:The CIT(Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to value the factory building at Rs. 3,50,000 instead of Rs. 10,00,000. The Tribunal upheld this valuation, noting the building was transferred to M/s. R. Narayan Dying & Printing Mills Ltd. and the beneficial owner concept as per the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. applied. The Tribunal directed the deletion of the Rs. 3,50,000 addition in the assessee's hands.Conclusion:The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal and partly allowed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(Appeals)'s valuations and rejecting the inclusion of the factory building's value in the assessee's taxable wealth.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found