itatonline.org Forum

Ask your queries or reply to others' queries => Discussion => Topic started by: sai prasad on April 19, 2011, 06:00:13 PM

Title: urban land under wealthtax whether includes agrl.lands in urban areas
Post by: sai prasad on April 19, 2011, 06:00:13 PM
Agrl.lands are never assets under the W.T. Act  and they were excluded from the assets under the old provisions of sec.2(ea). Now from F.A. 1992 sec.2(ea) defines assets ,which are taxable assets , and known as specified assets. The urban land  in the jurisdiction of a municipality or any other town areas with a population exceeding 10000 as per previous Census and the land in the pheripheral limits of such municipality is  a speicified asset. The proviso to the said sec. provides that the land on which construction is not permitted under any law; land for industrial purposes not exceeding 2 years as vacant land and land held as stock in trade for a period not exceeding 10 years are excluded. Thus agrl.lands are not intended to be included as  theyare  productive assets and  never they were treated as assets under the Wealth tax Act. The assessing officer is of the view that "any land" incldes agrl.lands too. Please give your opinion and any supporting case laws or such material.
Title: Re: urban land under wealthtax whether includes agrl.lands in urban areas
Post by: satyanveshi on April 19, 2011, 06:26:55 PM
please see the case law reported in 331 ITR 59. It may help you though it is on incometax but not on wealth tax. But the issue in dispute is agricultural lands only. Straight on the issue I could not find any case laws.
Title: Re: urban land under wealthtax whether includes agrl.lands in urban areas
Post by: sai prasad on April 20, 2011, 06:16:00 PM
since i posted last,  i have come across one judgment of the High Court in 284 ITR 511, which is a direct case on the issue. please go thru the same and  give your views
Title: Re: urban land under wealthtax whether includes agrl.lands in urban areas
Post by: JB on April 22, 2011, 06:25:42 PM
kindly see Cochin tribunal decision at 14 SOT 486 for contra view.