Find a Lawyer

W.T.AS. NOS. 585/LB, 1919/LB TO 1921/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 5TH DECEMBER, 2003. versus W.T.AS. NOS. 585/LB, 1919/LB TO 1921/LB OF 2002, DECIDED ON 5TH DECEMBER, 2003.

Sections 2 (5) (ii), 7, 17 and 134 Wealth Tax Rules, 1963, R 8 (8B) lease of building and machinery along with flour mill, appeal of levy appellate tribunal of financial tax, a private Limited Company Floor Mill and Building and Machinery and Assessing Officer imposed the Wealth Tax under section 2 (5) (ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, and the first appellate authority of the Assessing Officer Assisi confirmed the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Appeal challenged that both the officer and the appellate authority had misinterpreted section 2 (5) (ii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, which defined the \ asset definition. Asset Definition, which was responsible for the Wealth Tax Incident, said that in the case of the Company, under section 2 (5) (II) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1963, immovable property for sale was placed for sale. Or real estate was declared liable to wealth tax, taxation on property exclusion or exclusion of businesses could be taxed under the wealth law before the real estate of a company could be taxed. The requirement was that it was kept for that purpose as if the given company had been left in objection. His memorandum was a flour milling matter in the association and it was said that the property was never kept for the purpose of going out or leaving a business, but the Assisi claimed that milling was the sole purpose of flour. The company was incorporated with the aim of running a flour mill with a purpose. It was never considered at the time of starting and leasing of the business and that the adverse and unpleasant conditions had caused the flour. immigration advocates contact from Chashma lawyer