TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeals dismissed as not pressed; properties treated as commercial establishments excluded from 'assets' under Section 2(ea) Wealth Tax Act</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner Of Wealth Tax 7 New Delhi Versus M/s. Oriental Building And Furnishing Co. Ltd.</h3> SC dismissed the appeals as not pressed, upholding the HC and ITAT conclusion that the assessee's properties at Connaught Circus and Sardar Mohan Singh ... 'Commercial Establishments or Complexes' under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - ITAT held that the properties of Assessee at Connaught Circus, New Delhi and Sardar Mohan Singh Building, Connaught Lane, New Delhi were 'Commercial Establishments or Complexes' and therefore outside the purview of 'assets' under Section 2 (ea) (i) (5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (WTA)? - as urged by Revenue, that the expression 'commercial establishments or complexes' should be understood only in the plural and not in the singular High Court [2017 (7) TMI 1474 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held to unable to agree with the above submission. It is obvious from a reading of the entire Section 2 (ea) WTA that the legislative intent was not to restrict the benefit of exemption any particular type of commercial establishments or complexes. By reading such a restrictions into the said clause, the Court would be writing into Section 2 (ea) WTA something which is not there. Impugned order of the ITAT does not suffer from any legal infirmity. HELD THAT:- The appeals are not pressed on the ground of low tax effect. The appeals are dismissed as not pressed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. These appeals were instituted by the Revenue and were not pressed 'on the ground of low tax effect.' The court noted that the appellants did not pursue the matters substantively and accordingly held that 'The appeals are dismissed as not pressed.' All pending applications connected to the appeals were similarly disposed of. The decision is purely procedural: dismissal for want of prosecution/pressing by the appellant (Revenue), with no adjudication on the merits of the underlying tax issues. No party appeared for the respondent. The order records final procedural disposition and termination of the appeals without reaching substantive legal questions, leaving any merits issues open to renewal only if procedurally permissible under applicable rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
