Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.08 seconds)
Shri Dinash Chand Dave, Indore vs Ito-W,2(2), Indore on 26 July, 2019 cites

The Commissioner Of Income - Tax vs Smt. K.R. Ushasree on 5 August, 2008

The Ld. CWTA however rejected this argument of the assessee relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.R. Ushasree reported in 332 ITR 75 (Ker). We find that the Hon'ble Kerala High Court rejected the contention of the assessee that so far as businessman are concerned, cash in hand was an eligible asset and therefore, it was not covered by Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. However, we find from the perusal of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, the assessee therein, never argued for application of global valuation of the business in terms of Rule 14 Schedule III of the Rules for determining the value of assets. It is an admitted fact that cash in hand in the sum of Rs. 48,81,761/- in the instant case represents the cash belonging to the proprietary concern of the assessee and hence it is a business asset for the assessee. The said cash along with other eligible business asset had to be subjected to valuation for the purpose of Wealth Tax Act only in terms of Rule 14 Schedule III of the Rules.
Kerala High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - H L Dattu - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs M/S. Vegetables Products Ltd on 29 January, 1973

Moreover, if two interpretations are possible then the interpretation in favour of the assessee should be preferred as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC). Further, your honour's kind attention is invited to Finance Bill, 1992, it is quite clear that the intention of the legislature was not to impose wealth tax on any productive assets. In the present case the cash in hand is forming part of business asset, which is generated out of sale of gold/silver bullion and regularly been deposited in bank account of the assessee. The cash in hand shown at Rs.4,91,38,518/- as on 31.03.2007 has been deposited in the business bank 8 Shri Dinesh Chand Dave WTANo.12/Ind/2018 account of the assessee in next three working days (copy of bank statement is enclosed), as 31.03.2007 was Saturday and half day for banking and 1st and 2nd April, 2007 were holidays and bank yearly closing days. Thus, it is kindly requested that the cash in hand so shown in business of the assessee is not chargeable to wealth tax and hence, the same may please be treated as exempted as claimed. That THE observation of the learned CIT(A) that no details of deposits of cash subsequently were filed, is not correct. It is submitted that all such details were filed to support the contention that the cash in hand as on 31.03.2007 was deposited on next working days. Please refer page no._____ of paper book.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 1168 - K S Hegde - Full Document

Bimal Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs Dcit, Circle - 44, Kolkata, Kolkata on 16 January, 2019

48,81,761/- as part of his workings under global valuation of the business asset in terms of Schedule III Rule 14 of the Rules. We also find that the reliance placed by the Ld. AR on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bimal Kr. Singh vs. DCWT, Circle-44, Kolkata in WTA No. 13/Kol/2010 for assessment year 2006-07 dated 20.07.2011 is directly on this point wherein it was held that the cash balance generated out of cash sales would be treated as business asset and as such business asset shall not be treated as cash in hand within the meaning of Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act. The ratio laid down in this decision is squarely applicable 15 Shri Dinesh Chand Dave WTANo.12/Ind/2018 to the facts of the instant case. In our considered opinion, we hold that cash in hand referred to in Section 2(ea)(vi) of the Act represents only the personal cash of the assessee emanating from his personal balance sheet. It nowhere contemplated the inclusion of cash which is held as business asset. If it is so held, then the purpose of valuation method prescribed in Schedule III Rule 14 of the Rule would become redundant. Admittedly, the cash in hand of Rs. 48,81,761/- represents the cash belonging to the business of the assessee and thereby partakes the character of a business asset.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1