2007 (12) TMI 183

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aken for the computation of the net wealth of the assessee for valuation under Rule 3 of part B of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957? (b) Whether the assessee could be allowed deduction u/s 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 of the debts owed on pro-rata basis without the assessee establishing that the debts were incurred in relation to assets which formed part of the net wealth of the assessee ? 3. In so far as question (a) is concerned, the same does not survive in view of the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Akshay Textiles Trading Agencies P. Ltd. [2008] 304 ITR 401 (Bom) decided in Income Tax Appeal No.607 of 2005 on 17.10.2007. 4. In so far as question (b) is concerned, we find that the said questio....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee and accordingly, partly allowed the appeal. 9. Revenue aggrieved, preferred an appeal before ITAT. In ground (b) the liability of Rs.21,94,144/-was set out but it was wrongly stated as being deposit received from the tenants for letting out the properties. The other ground which was framed infact, did not arise from the order of the Commissioner (Appeal). The Appeal was listed with other Appeals. On common questions framed ITAT disposed off the various appeals including the appeal filed by the appellants herein. The three grounds which were raised in fact, were most extraneous in so far as respondent was concerned. 10. Based on the language of Section 27-A, learned Counsel for the respondents justifiably contended that the question ....