2014 (1) TMI 516
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lhi in Wealth Tax Appeal Nos. 88 (Del)/2004 and 88 (Del)/2004, relating to the assessment years 1993-94 and 1994-95, by which the appeals of the revenue were allowed. 3. The appeals have been preferred by the assessee on various grounds including the ground, as to whether the grove land situate in urban area on which no construction was permissible would come within the expression of 'urban land' under Section 2 (b) of the Wealth Tax Act 1957. In ground (a) as well as in ground no (d), the assessee has raised the issue that the Tribunal has allowed the revenue appeal , without considering the issue of valuation with reference to detrimental factors attached with status of land on the date of valuation, and thus the order of the Tribunal is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the assessee as stock-in-trade for a period of ten years from the date of its acquisition by him. 6. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in its order dated 30.03.2005 found that on the effective date of valuation i.e. on 31.3.1994, the status of the land was that of land acquired under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act by virtue of the order dated 22.2.1986 passed by the District Judge, Saharanpur. The order remained effective till 16.7.1994. Consequent upon the said latter order, the appeals of the assessee were allowed by the CIT (A) vide order dated 10.06.2004, holding that the land was agricultural land and the acquisition of land as vacant land being surplus land, was cancelled by the District Judge in view of the Urban L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l is accordingly rectified as under:- (1) In the last line of para 6 of the order, the words, "it is set aside and that of AO is restored" are deleted. In place of above, the following words are substituted: "We hold that the grove land is a taxable asset within the meaning of section 2 (ea)(vi) of the W.T. Act." (2) After para 6, the following para, as para No. 6 is added: "6.A. The counsel for the assessee had submitted in the alternative, that the learned CWT (A) did not go into the question of valuation of the grove land, which was erroneously taken at Rs. 84,56,000/-. He drew our attention to the detailed submissions made by the assessee on this issue. We find force in the above contention. The question of valuation has not been de....