https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16531 The High Court ruled against the assessee, determining that the agricultural lands were not to be classified as "business premises" under the Wealth-tax Act. The Court emphasized the requirement for concrete evidence of systematic entrepreneurial activities aimed at profit-making to qualify as business premises, noting that mere agricultural use was insufficient. The Court rejected the Appellate Tribunal's finding and upheld the levy of additional wealth-tax on the lands, stating that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the business classification, precluding the submission of new evidence at later stages. en-us Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:23:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16531 The High Court ruled against the assessee, determining that the agricultural lands were not to be classified as "business premises" under the Wealth-tax Act. The Court emphasized the requirement for concrete evidence of systematic entrepreneurial activities aimed at profit-making to qualify as business premises, noting that mere agricultural use was insufficient. The Court rejected the Appellate Tribunal's finding and upheld the levy of additional wealth-tax on the lands, stating that the burden of proof lies with the assessee to establish the business classification, precluding the submission of new evidence at later stages. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 05 Feb 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=16531