Agricultural land under legal construction restrictions is not 'urban land' for wealth-tax purposes under Section 2(ea)(v).

Land recorded as agricultural in the revenue records and supported by Urban Land Ceiling proceedings did not constitute "urban land" under Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act where construction was not permissible under law. The Court held that the statutory exclusion must be read with the applicable land-use and planning restrictions, and the authorities erred by applying the definition mechanically while ignoring documentary evidence. The relevant character of the land was its status on the date of transfer; later conversion could not retrospectively change that character. The Tribunal's finding was therefore unsustainable, and the land was outside the wealth-tax net.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessee's land, being classified in the revenue records as agricultural land and subject to legal restrictions on construction, constituted "urban land" within Section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 and was therefore liable to wealth-tax.

Analysis: The land had been classified as agricultural in the revenue records and was supported by proceedings of the Urban Land Ceiling Authority. Section 2(ea)(v) excludes land where construction is not permissible under law, and the Court read this exclusion along with the legal regime governing land use and planning permission. On the facts, the authorities had ignored the documentary evidence and applied the definition mechanically. The character of the land on the date of transfer remained agricultural, and its subsequent conversion did not alter that character retrospectively.

Conclusion: The land did not fall within the taxable definition of "urban land" under Section 2(ea)(v), and the finding of the Tribunal was unsustainable. The issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

---