On appeal by the revenue the Court held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that,  the land in question had remained vacant land inasmuch as the construction of the building was not completed as on the relevant valuation date and the said land would not be liable to be charged for wealth-tax under section 2(ea),  the land with a completed building alone would not qualify for exemption, the assessee would be entitled to exemption under the 1957 Act, as the building construction was not completed by the end of the relevant previous year since the building was under construction as a business asset,  the assessee’s “vacant urban land” was not an “asset” and not liable to tax under section 2(ea), and (e) even a “building under construction” was exempted, the land being assessed as “vacant urban” under the provisions of the 1957 Act. The order of the Tribunal was set aside. (AY. 2007-08 to 2009-10)