Smt. Leelabai And 5 Anr. vs Sita Bai And 6 Ors. on 19 December, 2014
9 F.A. No. 1449/2013 State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Shrikishan & Ors.
2
.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (2.01 seconds)Azimganj Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth Tax on 28 August, 1996
8. Now we take the matter of work-in-progress constituting ground No. 2 of the original grounds. The incomplete portion of the three buildings referred to above have been shown by the assessee as building in progress, bifurcated details of which have also been submitted by the assessee. Under cl. (vi) of s. 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983, it is "building" which is a taxable asset. The incomplete portions of the building, which have been alleged by the assessee to be the unfinished stock, cannot obviously fall within the term 'building' because it is only the completed buildings which can be put to residential or commercial use and so as to be taxable and not the incomplete portions of the buildings or for that matter the building in progress. Accordingly, we hold that the portion shown by the assessee as building in progress is not a taxable asset within s. 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, and so the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) (sic) in upholding the assessment order of the WTO in bringing the said building in progress to wealth-tax is not legally tenable.
Azimganj Estates Pvt. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Wealth Tax. on 28 August, 1996
8. Now we take the matter of work-in-progress constituting ground No. 2 of the original grounds. The incomplete portion of the three buildings referred to above have been shown by the assessee as building in progress, bifurcated details of which have also been submitted by the assessee. Under cl. (vi) of s. 40(3) of the Finance Act, 1983, it is "building" which is a taxable asset. The incomplete portions of the building, which have been alleged by the assessee to be the unfinished stock, cannot obviously fall within the term building because it is only the completed buildings which can be put to residential or commercial use and so as to be taxable and not the incomplete portions of the buildings or for that matter the building in progress. Accordingly, we hold that the portion shown by the assessee as building in progress is not a taxable asset within s. 40(3)(vi) of the Finance Act, 1983, and so the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) (sic) in upholding the assessment order of the WTO in bringing the said building in progress to wealth-tax is not legally tenable.
1