TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of his share of agricultural property held by firms in which he was a partner; (ii) Whether the issue of notice under section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 in respect of the property had to be taken into account while determining its market value for wealth-tax purposes.
Issue (i): Whether the assessee was entitled to exemption in respect of his share of agricultural property held by firms in which he was a partner.
Analysis: The exemption claimed by the assessee had been rejected on the footing that the agricultural properties were held by firms and therefore the benefit was available only in the hands of the firms. The Tribunal followed its earlier Special Bench decision, which supported the assessee's stand, and accepted that the exemption could not be denied merely because the agricultural property was owned through firms in which the assessee had an interest.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the exemption was directed to be allowed.
Issue (ii): Whether the issue of notice under section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976 in respect of the property had to be taken into account while determining its market value for wealth-tax purposes.
Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that once a notice under section 6 was issued, the property was exposed to an onerous forfeiture process, the burden of proof shifted under section 8, and transfers were disregarded for the purposes of the Act under section 11. The Tribunal held that a prudent purchaser would be discouraged from paying normal market price for property subject to such proceedings, and therefore the notice and proceedings under the Act would materially depress the value of the property. The valuation issue was therefore required to be reconsidered by the Wealth-tax Officer, who could also examine the assessee's other objections on the method of valuation.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee and the valuation was remitted for fresh determination after taking the notice and proceedings under the Act into account.
Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on both substantive objections, one by direct acceptance of the claimed exemption and the other by remand for revaluation after recognising the depressing effect of the statutory forfeiture notice on market value.
Ratio Decidendi: Where property is under proceedings initiated by notice under section 6 of the Smugglers and Foreign Exchange Manipulators (Forfeiture of Property) Act, 1976, the risk of forfeiture and the statutory consequences attaching to such notice are relevant factors that can materially reduce the property's market value for wealth-tax valuation.
TaxTMI 
