TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (10) TMI 621
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The first issue raised by the assessee is that the Commissioner of Wealthtax (Appeals) erred in holding that the aircraft co-owned by the assessee company is an asset liable to wealth-tax under section 2(ea)(iv) of the Act and thereby confirming the charge of wealth-tax on the value of the co-owned aircraft. It is further pleaded that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) also erred in holding that the aircraft was acquired for non-commercial purpose ignoring the fact that the aircraft was subjected to depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which itself justified commercial purpose behind acquiring the aircraft. 3. The relevant facts are that in the Balance sheet of the assessee company filed for the year ended....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stand that the aircraft, which was co-owned by the assesseecompany, was used for the purposes of it business and therefore the same was excludible from the definition of 'assets' as envisaged in section 2(ea)(iv) of the Act. Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal dated 29.11.2006 in the case of Finolex Cables Ltd., in WTA No 01/PN/05 wherein similar issue under same provisions of Wealth-tax Act was dealt with. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals), after considering the various submissions of the assessee held that since the aircraft was not used exclusively for business purposes of the assessee, the same could not be excluded from the scope of definition of 'assets' under section 2(ea) of the Act. As ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore, a minor disallowance on account of alleged personal usage in the Income-tax proceedings would not render the case of the assessee for the exclusion envisaged in section 2(ea)(iv) of the Act. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative, submitted that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) made no mistake in rejecting the plea of the assessee for including the impugned aircraft as an "asset" within the meaning of section 2(ea)(iv). According to him, in the Income-tax proceedings a partial disallowance of expenses has been made for personal use of the aircraft and, therefore, it could not be said to have been exclusively used for purposes of business. 7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e liable to wealth-tax. If it is used for commercial purposes', i.e. for business purposes, it will be exempt. 10. Interpretation postulates the search for the true meaning of the words used in the statute. If the language of the statute is plain, obvious meaning is to be applied. Rules of interpretation are applied only to resolve the ambiguities. The object and purpose of interpretation is to ascertain the Mens Legis, i.e., the intention of the law, as evinced in the statute. The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of law. To be literal in meaning is to see the body and miss the soul. The judicial key to interpretation is the composite perception of the Deha (body) and the Dehi (soul) of the provision." 8. The a....