TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (11) TMI 4
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s in Wealth-tax Reference No. 17/1977. It is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the decision on the question of law in this case will be applicable to all the references mentioned in this judgment. The relevant facts are in short compass. While making the wealth-tax assessment for the assessment year 1974-75, the WTO assessed the value of the agricultural land belonging to the assessee. As the agricultural land is situated within the urban area, the WTO treated that as an urban asset within the meaning of cl. (2) of Para. A, Pt. I of the Schedule to the W.T Act, 1957 (hereinafter called " the Act, 1957 "), and levied additional wealth-tax thereon (copy of the order is annex. A). The assessee who was dissatisfied with t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... B of Schedule 1." The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Patiala, being dissatisfied with the order of the Tribunal applied under s. 27(1) of the Act of 1957, praying that the following questions of law be referred for the opinion of this court : 1. (Arising out of Wealth-tax References Nos. 10, 11, 14, 15 & 16, 17 and 18 of 1977 ; 15 & 16, 21 and 22 of 1978 ; 1, 3 & 4, 5 & 6 and 7 of 1979) : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in upholding the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that the land in question was held by the assessee as business premises, as defined in rule l(1), Paragraph B of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act and thus exempt from the charge of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the " business premises " and not the land on which the business activity is done. We regret our inability to accept these contentions. To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel relies upon the decisions of the Madras High Court in L. M.Chitale & Son v. Commissioner of Labour [1964-65] 26 FJR 113 ; AIR 1964 Mad 131 ; Sankaranarayana Pillai v. Executive Officer, Panchayat Board, Ayikudi, AIR 1966 Mad 262, and the Bombay High Court decision in N. E. Merchant v. State, AIR 1968 Bom 283. We have gone through these decisions and find that they are clearly distinguishable and do not at all cover the matter in controversy. The entire decision of this controversy depends upon the true interpretation to be put on cl. (2) of Para. A, Pt. I a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... It is a word of large and wide import capable of a variety of meanings. In a broad sense, it is taken to mean everything that occupies the time, attention and labour of men for the purposes of livelihood or profit. Section 2(36) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (in short, " the Act of 1961 "), defines the term " profession " as including vocation. Vocation and occupation are synonymous and there is no difference between the two. Even if the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Department is accepted, the agricultural operation carried on by the assessee tantamounts to profession within the meaning of s. 2(36) of the Act of 1961. In Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa [1972] 83 ITR 26 (SC), it was observed that the expression " busines....