PCIT v. M. Balasubramaniam (2020)429 ITR 556/ ( 2021 ) 201 DTR 333 (Mad)(HC) CIT v. Sushila Devi Kejriwal (Smt.) (2020) 429 ITR 552 (Mad)

Wealth-Tax Act , 1956

S. 2(e ) (a) : Asset — Urban land — Urban land on which construction has been prohibited — Not an asset for purposes of wealth -Tax .[ S.16(3) ]

Dismissing the appeal of the revenue the Court held that Tribunal rightly took note of section 2(e)(a) of the Act and more particularly, the proviso to Explanation 1(b) which defines urban land. After noting that there was proposal to form a 100 ft road and that no construction could be put up on the land and that apart, the land had been classified as Coastal Region, Zone-II, the Tribunal allowed the assessee’s appeal and set aside the orders passed by the Assessing Officer as well as the Commissioner (Appeals). The order passed by the Tribunal was perfectly legal and valid. Furthermore, the Government of Tamil Nadu, in G.O. (D). No. 91, Highways and Minor Ports (HW 2) Department, dated June 6, 2019 had acquired the part of the land in Survey No. 406/78 Part to an extent of 6500 sq. m. The land was not an asset for the purposes of wealth-tax.