Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Rohini Hotels (Madras) Limited on 21 September, 2011
CIT., and the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in [2011] 330 ITR 157 CIT v. SMT. NEENA JAIN and submitted that given the fact that the assessee had commenced construction of the hotel building for its occupation, the 'asset' definitely answers the exclusion under sub clause (3) of Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act. He pointed out that it is not denied by the Revenue that the land in question was not a vacant land to fall under the definition of 'urban land'. It is not denied by the Revenue that the assessee had already obtained planning permission for the purpose of construction and also commenced construction activity during the years under consideration. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals), in his order, had also accepted that in respect of assessment year 1998-99, the asset in question was excluded from the purview of the chargeability under the Wealth Tax Act. Considering the fact that the assessee purchased the land and the whole building therein had to be demolished, it obtained necessary permission and commenced construction. Thus, the assessee does not answer the description of urban land or the substantial portion of Section 2(ea)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act.