https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257837 The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, affirming that the portion of the building used by the subsidiary company does not qualify for exemption under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. Despite being used productively, the building is not utilized by the assessee itself but by its separate legal entity subsidiary. The Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the appellate tribunal and High Court's reasoning that the statutory language necessitates direct usage by the assessee for its business to merit exemption. en-us Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:44:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257837 The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, affirming that the portion of the building used by the subsidiary company does not qualify for exemption under Section 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983. Despite being used productively, the building is not utilized by the assessee itself but by its separate legal entity subsidiary. The Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the appellate tribunal and High Court's reasoning that the statutory language necessitates direct usage by the assessee for its business to merit exemption. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Tue, 10 Mar 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=257837