<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (1) TMI 826 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271034</link>
    <description>The SC upheld the HC&#039;s decision that urban land is excluded from wealth tax only when a building is completely constructed thereupon, not during construction. The court rejected the assessee&#039;s argument for purposive interpretation, holding that the statutory language &quot;has been constructed&quot; cannot include buildings under construction. The expression &quot;land occupied by any building&quot; requires complete construction, as land cannot be considered occupied by a building still under construction. The court found that accepting the assessee&#039;s contention would grant exemption from the moment construction commences, even with laying one brick, which would be too far-fetched. The assessee&#039;s submission for wealth tax exemption was rejected.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 02 May 2025 16:09:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=414051" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (1) TMI 826 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271034</link>
      <description>The SC upheld the HC&#039;s decision that urban land is excluded from wealth tax only when a building is completely constructed thereupon, not during construction. The court rejected the assessee&#039;s argument for purposive interpretation, holding that the statutory language &quot;has been constructed&quot; cannot include buildings under construction. The expression &quot;land occupied by any building&quot; requires complete construction, as land cannot be considered occupied by a building still under construction. The court found that accepting the assessee&#039;s contention would grant exemption from the moment construction commences, even with laying one brick, which would be too far-fetched. The assessee&#039;s submission for wealth tax exemption was rejected.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Wealth-tax</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 24 Jul 2015 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=271034</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>