The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited - 2015-LL-0121-80

Citation	2015-LL-0121-80
Appellant Name	The Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad
Respondent Name	Gulf Oil Corporation Limited
Court	HIGH COURT OF HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Relevant Act	Wealth-tax
Date of Order	21/01/2015
Assessment Year	2002-03
Judgment	View Judgment
Keyword Tags	commercial establishment • residential purpose • commercial purpose • business purpose • house property • capital gain
Bot Summary:	2 and 3 of 2014 Common Judgment: Both these matters are taken up for hearing as the same have been filed against the common judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 13.11.2013 in relation to the assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-04 and are sought to be admitted on the following suggested questions of law: i. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the vacant land as Sanky Tank, Bangalore is not an asset under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 even when the capital gains computation filed by the Respondent-assessee for the assessment year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 indicates that the said land is a vacant land ii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the Respondent-assessee has 18 buildings standing on the land at Sanky Tank, Bangalore despite the fact that the capital gains computation for the assessment year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 shows that the land is vacant land and the assessee did not produce any evidence for retaining the buildings during the assessment year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 iii. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon ble Tribunal is correct in law in holding that the land at Sanky Tank, Bangalore is used by the Respondent- assessee for its own business purpose even when the Respondent-assessee got the conversion of the land and entered into memorandum of agreement on 14.3.2002 with M/s. Udhyaman Investments Ltd., for development of the land for residential and commercial purpose which clearly indicates that the Respondent-assessee was not using the land for its own business either on 31.3.2002 or 31.3.2003 iv. The learned Tribunal, on fact, found that the properties are used by the asessee for business purposes. So Wealth Tax has no application to the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid fact finding, which is not alleged to be perverse, we do not find any element of law to be decided in these appeals. The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed.

THE HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.T.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2014 DATED:21.01.2015 W.T.A.No. 2 of 2014 Between: Commissioner of Income Tax-II,, Hyderabad. Appellant And M/s.Gulf Oil Corporation Limited, Hyderabad. .Respondent HON BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.T.A. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2014 Common Judgment: (per Hon'ble Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) Both these matters are taken up for hearing as same have been filed against common judgment and order of learned Tribunal dated 13.11.2013 in relation to assessment years 2002-2003 and 2003-04 and are sought to be admitted on following suggested questions of law: i. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that vacant land as Sanky Tank, Bangalore is not asset under Wealth Tax Act, 1957 even when capital gains computation filed by Respondent-assessee for assessment year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 indicates that said land is vacant land ? ii. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that Respondent-assessee has 18 buildings standing on land at Sanky Tank, Bangalore despite fact that capital gains computation for assessment year 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 shows that land is vacant land and assessee did not produce any evidence for retaining buildings during assessment year 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 ? iii. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that land at Sanky Tank, Bangalore is used by Respondent- assessee for its own business purpose even when Respondent-assessee got conversion of land and entered into memorandum of agreement on 14.3.2002 with M/s. Udhyaman Investments (P) Ltd., for development of land for residential and commercial purpose which clearly indicates that Respondent-assessee was not using land for its own business either on 31.3.2002 or 31.3.2003 ? iv. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that flats which are not let out for residential purpose and also which are not qualified as commercial establishment or complex are exempt from Wealth Tax ? v. In facts and circumstances of case, whether Hon ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that merely because income is shown under head of house property property let out for business purpose is exempt from Wealth Tax ? After hearing Mr. B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for Revenue and after going through judgment and order of learned Tribunal, it appears to us that issue involved is whether property in question should be brought under purview of Wealth Tax or not. learned Tribunal, on fact, found that properties are used by asessee for business purposes. So Wealth Tax has no application to facts of case. In view of aforesaid fact finding, which is not alleged to be perverse, we do not find any element of law to be decided in these appeals. Hence, appeals are dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs. K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 21st January, 2015 Pnb Commissioner of Income-tax-II, Hyderabad v. Gulf Oil Corporation Limited

Metadata

Judgment