2018 (10) TMI 749

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2. Learned CIT (A) erred in holding that share of property at a value of Rs. 2,13,50,000 is a commercial asset and is exempt u/s 2(ea)(i)(3) of Wealth Tax Act. 3. Learned CIT (A) failed to appreciate that asset has not fulfilled the conditions to be categorized as commercial establishment. 4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing of appeal". 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company purchased a property at Visakhapatnam along with two other group companies on 12.10.2006 for a consideration of Rs. 6,40,50,000. The property is located at Daba Gardens in Visakhapatnam and comprised of land and building being a Cinema Theatre. The assessee did not file its returns of wealth for the A.Y 20....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rried on the said property, while on the other hand, had claimed that the asset is an existing cinema theatre and is not liable for wealth tax. Observing that the assessee did not produce any copy of the permission/license issued by the local authority for running the commercial establishment on the property under consideration, he held that the property is not liable to be treated as an asset under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. He therefore, proceeded to compute the wealth tax chargeable on the asset of Rs. 2,41,20,000 and brought to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeals before the CIT (A), who allowed the same and the Revenue is in appeal before us raising the above grounds of appeal. 5. While the learned DR supported the orders o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ompany in the financials. Therefore, the asset is a commercial asset which is purchased for commercial activity. Hence, the same should not be included in assets in terms of section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. In light of the above, I accept the contention of the appellant. Hence ground is allowed". 8. Except for relying upon the assessment order, the learned DR could not rebut the findings of the CIT(A). The learned DR however, had also placed reliance on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of TGV Projects & Investments (P) Ltd vs. ACIT reported in (2006)153 Taxman 15 (Hyd.) wherein the amended definition of the term "asset" by the Finance Bill (No.2) 1996, was considered and after taking into con....