The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax v. M/S.rama Chemicals Pvt. Ltd
High Court
17 Sep 2009 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · newos
Parties
The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax v. M/S.rama Chemicals Pvt. Ltd
Date of order
17 Sep 2009
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax v. M/S.rama Chemicals Pvt. Ltd, the High Court (2009) dismissed the appeal.
Decision: In view of the above, we incline to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A).” 3.No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal.
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
bgp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1272 OF 2009
The Commissioner of Wealth Tax
Vs.
M/s.Rama Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
..Appellant
..Respondent
Mr.Vimal Gupta for appellant.
Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent.
CORAM :- V.C.DAGA &
J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ.
DATE :
17TH SEPTEMBER, 2009
P.C.
1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
Perused appeal.
2.The Tribunal, after appreciation of evidence, has recorded a finding of fact
reading as under:
“6......................It is pertinent to note that the AO himself in the beginning of the assessment order has stated that property given as rent was a commercial property and therefore, as per clause (5) to Section 2(ea)(i) of the Act, such commercial property will not be subject to wealth tax. In our opinion the phrase ‘any property’ in clause (5) to section 2(ea)(i) of the W.T.Act will include part of the property i.e. commercial complex owned by different assessee. In view of the above, we incline to uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A).”
3.No fault can be found with the view taken by the Tribunal. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view in the facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal is without any substance. Hence, the same stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
(J.P.DEVADHAR,J.)
(V.C.DAGA,J.)
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.