Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2013 (3) TMI 611

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the lead case. In this appeal, which is directed against the order of the CWT(Appeals)-II, Pune, dated 23.02.2011, pertaining to A.Y. 2000-01, the following substantive Grounds of Appeal have been raised:- 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law and to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee instead of confirming the order passed by the Assessing Office. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) grossly erred in holding that the commercial properties rented by the assessee are not assets u/s 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 without appreciating that the commercial establishments ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received Rs.3,89,392 b) Let out property at plot No.417, 18 & 19 Market Yard, Pune, Rent Rs.6,94,365 c) Let out property at Plot No.415 & 16 Market Yard Pune, Rent Rs.4,80,000 d) Let out property at Pune Camp Rs.13,80,000 e) Rent from Lalbaug Soc., Shop Rs. 30,000 Gross maintainable Rent Rs.29,73,757 Capitalisation of net maintainable rent = 24,86,994 x 12.5 = 3,10,87,425/- ii) Commercial property at Sharda Arcade, Pune. Rs.4,40,00,000/-   Rs.7,50,87,425/-   4. The CWT(Appeals) has since held that the aforesaid assets are covered by the exemption contained in Explanation (5) to section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, and accordingly directed the Assessing Officer to exclude the net wealth of Rs. 7,50,87,425/- for the purpose....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ich have been let out by the assessee to different business entities. The claim of the assessee is that the said properties do not fall within the definition of the expression 'assets' contained in section 2(ea)(i) because of the specific exclusion provided in Explanation (5) below section 2(ea)(i) on the ground that they are in the nature of "commercial establishments or complexes". 8. Explanation (5) below section 2(ea)(i) covers any property in the nature of "commercial establishments or complexes". As per the Revenue, the aforesaid properties, though being used for commercial activities, are let out by the assessee. According to the Revenue, the said properties are not being used by the assessee for the purposes of his own business. The....