Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
Cwt vs Hazarat Pir Shah-E-Alam on 12 April, 2002
6. The brief facts in the grounds of appeal of the assessee are that the
assessee owned 21 acres of land in Village Dhogri, Distt. Jalandhar and 6
acres in Village Surakhpur, Tehsil Nazafgarh, Delhi which were within 8
5 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
Kms from respective municipal limits. The cases were reopened and in
response to notice u/s 17 of W.T.Act, a return of wealth declaring at
Rs.5,21,400/- was filed. The agricultural land belonging to assessee at these
two villages were claimed exempt. In reply to notice u/s 16(4)/16(2) of
W.T.Act, in the written submissions made the assessee submitted that no
doubt the land at both these places were situated within 8 KM of the
municipal limits of Jalandhar and Delhi. Yet it is pointed out and the land in
issue was agriculture land on which the agriculture activity were carried on.
It was claimed as exempt under Wealth Tax Act in view of the Madras High
Court judgment in the case of CWT vs. E. Ddayakumar ( 284 ITR 511). The
assessee further submitted that the agriculture land on which the agriculture
activity is carried on was also out of the definition of urban land.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Hari Chand And Lakhpat Singh on 10 October, 1991
Hence
such agriculture land is exempt from Wealth Tax, in view of the judgment in
the case of CIT vs. Hari Singh (1980) 123 ITR 558 (P&H). It was further
submitted that the value of agriculture land situated at Village Dhogri as
per revenue record is Rs.272382.96 per acre, as per the certificate of
Patwari. As regard agriculture land situated in village Surakhpur, Delhi the
land was purchased in the year 1993-94 amounting to Rs.8,05,000/-. Due to
remoteness of area the price was not increased rather it was decreased in the
6 WTA Nos.4 to 11(Asr)/2012 etc.
year under consideration. The AO after considering the reply did not find
himself in agreement with the assessee's arguments holding as under:
1