Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter

Generate professional replies to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Step 1 – Issue Identification & Review

The AI analyses your query, notice, order, or uploaded documents and identifies the key issues involved.

• Review the issues identified by the AI
• Add, edit, remove, or refine issues as required


Step 2 – Draft Generation

Once you approve the issues, the AI performs issue-wise legal research and prepares a structured draft response.

• Relevant statutory provisions
• Judicial precedents and Supreme Court, High Court and other citations
• Issue-wise legal analysis
• Practical arguments and supporting content
• Professionally structured draft ready for further review.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2010 (8) TMI 926

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y No. 33/1 admeasuring 39,700 square metres and Survey No. 33/2 admeasuring 550 square metres, known as "Rajabaga" or "Quindelibaga", situated at Village Nagorcem, Palolem, (hereinafter referred to as "the said property"). The property is included in the jurisdiction of Canacona Municipal Council, in Sub-District of Canacona, District of South Goa. 3. By a Sale Deed dated 11-5-1994, the Appellants sold the said property to M/s. Deeksha Holding Pvt. Ltd., for a consideration of Rs. 3,27,49,000. In pursuance of a notice issued under section 17(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, each of the Appellants filed a return of their Wealth on 16-8-2000. Mr. Prabhakar Kunde, the Appellant in Appeal No. 12/2004, who had 25 per cent share in the property....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 500 metres of High Tide line and as such the construction was permissible even under the CRZ Regulations. He, therefore, held that the entire property was an urban property and the value of the entire property was to be taken into consideration while computing the total wealth of the Appellants. The Tribunal also confirmed the view of the two authorities below. Hence, this Appeal. 4. By an Order dated 26-6-2004, this Court admitted the Appeal by framing the following substantial question of law : 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that as the entire area was used for developing into "Beach Resort", the said landed property is liable t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rice of the property which is buildable because under section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, the non-buildable property was not liable to be included while computing the Wealth (assets) under the Wealth-tax Act. Section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act, defines "the assets" in relation to the assessment year commencing on 1-4-1993 or under subsequent assessment years and includes in it "urban land". The expression 'urban land' has been defined in Explanation (b) to section 2(ea) of the Wealth-tax Act and reads thus : "(b)"urban land" means land situate :- (i )  in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area commi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dable under any law for the time being in force is not included in assessable wealth of a person. Since the said property consists of a part of a land which is buildable and part of the land which is not buildable, the Assessing Officer ought to have excluded the value of the portion of the land which was unbuildable while computing the wealth of the Appellants. Judgment Continued on 30th August, 2010 9. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-CIT submitted that a very small portion of the said land was not buildable while the Counsel for the Appellants submitted that a large part of the said land was non-buildable. Perusal of the Order of the Assessing Officer as well as the Appellate Authority does not disclose what portion of the sa....