https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366503 The court held that the 28 acres of 'urban land' did not qualify for exemption under the Wealth Tax Act as they were productive and income-yielding assets. The land, though not allowed for permanent constructions, was used for temporary structures generating income. The court also found that the land was not entirely prohibited for construction under the Karnataka Parks Act, making it subject to Wealth Tax. Protective assessments by the Assessing Authority were deemed justified due to ongoing litigation and interim orders. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing substantive assessments on the lands in question. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jul 2023 14:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366503 The court held that the 28 acres of 'urban land' did not qualify for exemption under the Wealth Tax Act as they were productive and income-yielding assets. The land, though not allowed for permanent constructions, was used for temporary structures generating income. The court also found that the land was not entirely prohibited for construction under the Karnataka Parks Act, making it subject to Wealth Tax. Protective assessments by the Assessing Authority were deemed justified due to ongoing litigation and interim orders. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue, allowing substantive assessments on the lands in question. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=366503