Respondent was developing a project in the name of “Mega City” spread over 600 acres of land at Panvel. The project was duly approved by State Government under the provisions of Special Township Development Scheme. The land was purchased in the financial year 2008-09 and 2009-10. In the financial statement of Respondent, the land was reflected as inventories, i.e., stock in trade. Therefore, Respondent did not take this land into account while computing net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act. According to Respondent, it was not an asset which is covered by Wealth Tax being stock in trade and excluded for 10 years from the date of acquisition. Notwithstanding the fact that Respondent had started preliminary work to develop a special township after proper approval of the Government and as per the sanction letter of State Government dated 9^th August, 2007 Respondent was required to complete the work of development of special township within a period of 15 years, the Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of Respondent and held that any land which was acquired for industrial purpose, does not form part of stock in trade as the same remained unused for two years, and it will form part of wealth of Respondent. The Assessing Officer further held that Respondent was not a dealer in land who is engaged in business of buying and selling of land and the land acquired by Respondent can not be considered as an inventory. On appeal the  CIT(A) held that the  Assessing Officer has actually allowed all expenses incurred by Respondent as business expenses, which would mean Respondent was pursuing development work and hence  land in question would not fall within the definition of ‘Urban Land’ being stock in trade and business asset of Respondent. On appeal the Tribunal held that the explanation (1)(b) attached with Section 2(ea) of the Act clearly specified that any land held by assessee as stock in trade for a period of 10 years from the date of acquisition will not be included in the definition of ‘Urban Land’. ITAT also held that as per Section 2(m) of Wealth Tax Act, while determining the wealth tax liability of Respondent, the aggregate value of debt owed by Respondent in respect of assets owned by Respondent have to be reduced from the aggregate value of asset belonging to Respondent. On appeal by the Revenue High Court affirmed the order of the Tribunal  . (AY. 2010- 11 , 2011-12 , 2012 -13 )