2009 (2) TMI 19

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s wealth of the company, when the factory building has not been charged for wealth-tax? (2) Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the approach road and internal roads are treated as part of the building for the purpose of depreciation under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore, the assessee is the owner of the land ? 2. The brief facts of the case were as under:- (a) The applicant company was the owner of a plot of land with several structures standing thereon. For the assessment year 1990-91, an assessment was filed by the assessee detailing the details of the user of the aforesaid open plot of land. These details as shown by the assessee were as follows:- Buildings :- (1) Land surrendered to the Municipal ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mbay Municipal Corporation. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the ITAT, the assessee therefore, requested for a reference and the questions already mentioned here-in-above have been therefore, referred. 3. It is a common ground that for the relevant year, wealth tax in respect of the assessee company was chargeable in accordance with section 40 of the Wealth Tax Act which was introduced by the Finance Act 1983. Section 40(3) set out assets which were chargeable to wealth tax and section 40(3)(vi) was in the following terms :- (vi) building or land appurtenant thereto, other than building or part thereof used by the assessee as factory, godown, warehouse, hotel or office for the purposes of its business or as residential accommodation....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....plicant drew our attention to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Angoori Devi(Smt) Vs.  State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 875.  That judgment also pertains to the definition of vacant land as contained in the Urban Land Ceiling Act. In our view, it would have no bearing on the issue in question. 5. In our view, therefore, issue no.1 is required to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of revenue. 6. In so far as question no.2 is concerned, it is seen from the record that the assessee himself has never controverted the fact that he was the owner of the entire plot with the structures standing thereon. Since his ownership of the plot in question is admitted, such ownership will include the ownershi....