https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31084 The court dismissed the appellant's contention regarding the exclusion of premises as assets under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as they were not used for business purposes but leased to Citibank. Additionally, the court ruled that the premises did not qualify as assets in the hands of Citibank under Section 4(8)(b) as the arrangement was a license without creating ownership rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the premises' usage and the nature of the arrangement with Citibank. en-us Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31084 The court dismissed the appellant's contention regarding the exclusion of premises as assets under Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as they were not used for business purposes but leased to Citibank. Additionally, the court ruled that the premises did not qualify as assets in the hands of Citibank under Section 4(8)(b) as the arrangement was a license without creating ownership rights. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the premises' usage and the nature of the arrangement with Citibank. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=31084