TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1991 (6) TMI 35
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e as an asset within the meaning of section 2(e) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?" The assessee was the owner of agricultural lands ; there is no dispute that he lost his lands under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, and they vested in the State Government. But the compensation receivable by the assessee was not yet determined at the time of assessment. The amount was estimated as Rs. 1,19,000 and, after giving the deduction, its value was determined for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act (for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79), in the light of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated May 15, 1964. There is also no dispute as to the mode of valuation in this case. The assessee contends that, si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er deducting the value of encumbrances under section 50. The amounts are paid in the mode stated in section 51, i.e., cash to some extent and non-transferable and non-negotiable bonds for the balance carrying interest at the rate of five and half per cent. per annum, maturing within a specified period not exceeding twenty years ; it is unnecessary to refer to the details of those provisions. The compensation is a determinable amount. There is a definiteness in the principles applicable to compute the amount ; in case of dispute, there is a machinery to resolve the same by applying the norms provided by the said Act. The only snag or hindrance to its full enjoyment by the owner is the delay involved in its determination and waiting period....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot affect the right of the proprietor or tenureholder to the compensation. The assessee, in our opinion, was vested with a right to get compensation immediately his land was vested in the State. Section 2(e) of the Act defines 'assets' to include property of every description, movable or immovable, but does not include certain categories of property with which we are not concerned. The word 'property', as mentioned by this court in the case of Ahmed G. H. Ariff v. CWT [1970] 76 ITR 471, is term of the widest import and, subject to any limitation which the context may require, it signifies every possible interest which a person can clearly hold and enjoy. The definition of 'assets' as given in section 2(e) of the Act, though not exhaustive, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... not denied by the State. It is no doubt true that the compensation is not payable immediately and its payment might be spread over a period of 40 years, but that fact would be relevant only for the purpose of evaluating the right to compensation. It would not detract from the proposition that the right to receive compensation, even though the date of payment is deferred, is property and constitutes asset for the purpose of the Wealthtax Act." At page 109, a decision of the Calcutta High Court in CWT v. U. C. Mahatab [1970] 78 ITR 214 was referred to wherein such a right to receive compensation under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act was held as not an asset. The Supreme Court left open the correctness of the said decision. Further....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ue, indeterminate, problematical, contingent, and a mere possibility or expectancy. What we are holding is that it is not so on the present facts before us under the scheme and the sections of the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act." The decision entirely rested on the facts of the said case. The compensation (referred to as the "amount") under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act is not so vague, indeterminate, contingent, etc., as was the case under the above said West Bengal Act. The provisions of the Karnataka Act are clear ; the fact that the determination of the amount gets delayed in view of the procedural delays is no ground to hold that no compensation would be awarded and that no right exists. The amount determined as payable relate....