https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280063 The court held that the appellant's land, covered by trees where construction was not possible without permission, did not fall under the definition of urban land and was therefore not subject to Wealth Tax. The court emphasized that such land should not be considered an asset for Wealth Tax purposes and that its market value would be lower than land suitable for construction. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous tribunal's order and dropping the proceedings against the appellant. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 19 Apr 2019 05:57:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280063 The court held that the appellant's land, covered by trees where construction was not possible without permission, did not fall under the definition of urban land and was therefore not subject to Wealth Tax. The court emphasized that such land should not be considered an asset for Wealth Tax purposes and that its market value would be lower than land suitable for construction. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the previous tribunal's order and dropping the proceedings against the appellant. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 19 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280063