2001 PLP 2535 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus CEMA (P.) LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2535 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 629 |
| Bench Members | S. H. Kapadia and A. P. Shah, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus CEMA (P.) LTD. |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2535 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2535 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 629 bench comprising: S. H. Kapadia and A. P. Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2535 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus CEMA (P.) LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- R.V. Desai with J.P. Deodhar for Appellant.
- Ms. A. Vissanji with S.J. Mehta for Respondent
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Business asset‑‑‑Building used as a commercial asset‑‑‑Value of building not includible in net wealth‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Held, that the Tribunal on the facts had come to the conclusion that the property was a business asset. Merely because the property had been leased out for five years, it did not change the commercial character of the asset. Moreover, the returns filed by the assessee right, from the assessment year 1985‑86 clearly indicated that even under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee had been given the benefit of depreciation and the income received by the assessed had been treated as income from business. Hence, the value of the property was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee.
Judgment & Decree
Wealth Tax Appeal No. 174 of 2000, decided on 28th February, 2000. ‑‑‑‑Exemption‑‑‑Business asset‑‑‑Building used as a commercial asset‑‑‑Value of building not includible in net wealth‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957. Held, that the Tribunal on the facts had come to the conclusion that the property was a business asset. Merely because the property had been leased out for five years, it did not change the commercial character of the asset. Moreover, the returns filed by the assessee right, from the assessment year 1985‑86 clearly indicated that even under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the assessee had been given the benefit of depreciation and the income received by the assessed had been treated as income from business. Hence, the value of the property was not includible in the net wealth of the assessee. R.V. Desai with J.P. Deodhar for Appellant. Ms. A. Vissanji with S.J. Mehta for Respondent The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether value of the property consisting of office premises at Maker Chambers III at Nariman Point was includible in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal, on facts, came to the conclusion that the above mentioned office premises was a business asset not liable to wealth tax. That, merely because the said office premises have been leased out for five years, did not change the commercial character of the said asset. Apart from the order of the Tribunal which is passed, on facts, we ourselves examined the returns filed by the assessee right‑ from the assessment year 1985‑86 which clearly indicate that even under the Income‑tax Act, the assessee has been given the benefit of depreciation and the income received by the assessee has been treated as income from business. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal dismissed. M.B.A./963/FC Appeal dismissed.