1981 (9) TMI 207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pute that both the theatre and the land and building in question are used for the purpose of the business of the two firms. The Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, giving the rate of wealth-tax enacts that an additional tax shall be imposed on urban assets including a share of any partner in the urban assets held by a firm. Treating these theatre buildings as urban asset the WTO imposed additional tax. On appeal, the AAC found that these urban assets were business premises and, therefore, cannot be subjected to additional tax. 3. In this appeal it was pointed out on behalf of the revenue that these buildings were actually held by the firms and under the general law the assessee-partner cannot specify any share in those buildings as his s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....very definition excludes business premises from its scope. Therefore, primarily additional tax cannot be imposed on business premises even if it happens to be in an urban area. If an individual has held a business premises it would not be an urban asset and it will not suffer additional tax. But the revenue seeks to deny this exemption merely because the individual holds it along with others as a partnership. Normally the interest of a partner not being an interest in a particular asset held by a firm would not be liable to additional tax, but for the deeming provision in rule 3 under Paragraph B of the Schedule. Rule 3 itself states that where the net wealth of the assessee includes an interest in a firm and the assets of the firm included....