Case LawHigh Court › The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax – 7, Mumb...

The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.rasiklal & Co. Private Limited

High Court 08 Feb 2010 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.rasiklal & Co. Private Limited
Date of order
08 Feb 2010
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Dismissed

Case summary

In The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax – 7, Mumbai v. M/S.rasiklal & Co. Private Limited, the High Court (2010) dismissed the appeal.

Issue: P.C. : 1.The issue in the Appeal is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of a warehouse from the taxable wealth of the assessee.

Decision: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.

Sections referenced in this judgment

The order — as passed by the High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO.3001 OF 2009 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax – 7, Mumbai ..Appellant. Versus M/s.Rasiklal & Co. Private Limited ..Respondent. Ms.Padma Divakar for the appellant. Mr.S.C. Tiwari with Mr.R. Asokan and Ms.Meghana Butala for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 8[th] Ferbuary, 2010. P.C. : 1.The issue in the Appeal is as to whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to exclude the value of a warehouse from the taxable wealth of the assessee. 2.In the present case, the assessee owns a warehouse at M.I.D.C., Turbhe, Navi Mumbai. The assessee has put the warehouse to use by providing warehousing services to its various clients. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has accepted that the prime object of the assessee was to let out a portion of the property to various occupants on monthly rental basis. The Tribunal held, following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CWT V/s. CEMA (P) Limited, (2001) 248 ITR 629 (Bom) that the property was being used for commercial purposes and hence falls within the exclusion carved out by Section 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. 3.Having regard to the finding of fact that has been entered in respect of the commercial nature of the property and user thereof, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, which does not give rise to any substantial question of law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation. Full disclaimer & Terms.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan