Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (2.89 seconds)M.Nizamuddin vs M/S Chemplast Sanmar Ltd.& Ors on 10 March, 2010
11. Mr. Jain also submitted that the stand of the respondent that only
completed buildings are to be brought into the ambit of the word 'has
been constructed' is not tenable since completed buildings fall under a
different clause i.e. clause (ea)(i). According to him, if that is accepted
then in such cases, Section 2 (ea)(v) read with Explanation 1(b) would
not be required at all since a completed building is covered
independently in Section 2(ea)(i). He, thus, submitted that seen in this
context, the expression 'has been constructed' must be read as 'is being
constructed' in order to give effect to the legislative intent. He relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of M. Nizamuden v.
11
Chemplast Sanmar Limited and Others1, wherein it is held that:
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 17 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
1