Month: December

The assessees had undertaken construction projects which were approved by the municipal authorities/local authorities as housing projects. On that basis, they claimed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act.

However, the income tax authorities rejected the claim of deduction on the ground that the projects were not “housing project” inasmuch as some commercial activity was also undertaken in those projects. This contention of the Revenue was not accepted by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal as well as the High Court. The High Court interpreted the expression “housing project” by giving grammatical meaning thereto as housing project is not defined under the Income-tax Act insofar as the aforesaid provision is concerned. The High Court held that since sub-section (10) of section 80-IB very categorically mentioned that such a project which is undertaken as housing project is approved by a local authority, once the project is approved by the local authority it is to be treated as the housing project. The High Court had made observations in the context of Development Control Regulations (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCRs’ in short) under which the local authority sanctions the housing projects and noted that in these DCRs itself, an element of commercial activity is provided but the total project is still treated as housing project. The Supreme Court noted that on the basis of this discussion, after modifying some of the directions given by the ITAT , the conclusions arrived at by the High Court were as follows:-

a) Upto 31/3/2005 (subject to fulfilled other conditions), deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) is allowable to housing projects approved by the local authority having residential units with commercial user to the extent permitted under DC Rules/Regulations framed by the respective local authority.

b) I n such a case, where the commercial user permitted by the local authority is within the limits prescribed under the DC Rules/Regulation, the deduction u/s. 80- IB(10) upto 31/3/2005 would be allowable irrespective of the fact that the project is approved as ‘housing project’ or ‘residential plus commercial’.

c) I n the absence of any provision under the Income-tax Act, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that upto 31/3/2015 deduction u/s. 80-IB(10) would be allowable to the projects approved by the local authority having residential building with commercial user upto 10% of the total built-up area of the plot.

d) Since deductions u/s. 80-IB(10) is on the profits derived from the housing projects approved by the local authority as a whole, the Tribunal was not justified in restricting section 80-IB(10) deduction only to a part of the project. However, in the present case, since the assessee has accepted the decision of the Tribunal in allowing section 80-IB(10) deduction to a part of the project, the findings of the Tribunal in that behalf were not disturbed.

e) Clause (d) inserted to section 80IB(10) with effect from 1/4/2005 was prospective and not retrospective and hence could not be applied for the period prior to 1/4/2005.

The Supreme Court agreed with the aforesaid answers given by the High Court to the various issues. The Supreme Court however, clarified that in so far as answer at para (a) was concerned, it would mean those projects which were approved by the local authorities as housing projects with commercial element therein.

There was much debate on the answer given in para (b) above before the Supreme Court. It was argued by learned senior counsel, for the Revenue that a project which was cleared as “residential plus commercial” project could not be treated as housing project and therefore, this direction was contrary to the provisions of section 80-IB(10) of the Act. However, according to the Supreme Court reading the direction in its entirety and particularlly the first sentence thereof, the commercial user which was permitted was in the residential units and that too, as per DCR.

The Supreme Court clarified that direction (b) was to be read in the context where the project was predominantly housing/residential project but the commercial activity in the residential units was permitted.

The question of law that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was formulated by it as under:

“Whether section 80-IB(10)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applies to a housing project approved before March 31, 2005, but completed on or after April 1, 2005”?

The Supreme Court observed that sub-section (10) of section 80IB stipulates certain conditions which are to be satisfied in order to avail of the benefit of the said provision. Further, the benefit is available to those undertakings which are developing and building “housing projects” approved by a local authority. Thus, this section is applicable in respect of housing projects and not commercial projects. At the same time, it is a fact that even in the housing projects, there would be some are for commercial purposes as certain shops and commercial establishments area needed even in a housing project.

That has been judicially recognised while interpreting the provision that existing before 1st April, 2005 in CIT vs. Veena Developers [SLP (c) No.22450/2011 dated 30-4- 2015], and there was no limit fixed in section 80-IB(10) regarding the built-up area to be used for commercial purpose in the said housing project. The extent to which such commercial area could be constructed was as per the local laws under which local authority gave the sanction to the housing project. However, vide clause (d), which was inserted by the aforesaid amendment and made effective from 1st April, 2005, it was stipulated that the built-up area of the shops and other commercial establishments in the housing projects would not exceed 5 % of the aggregate built-up area of the housing project or 2,000 square feet, whichever is less (there is a further amendment whereby 5 % is reduced to 3 % and instead of the words “2,000 square feet, whichever is less” the words “5,000 square feet, whichever is higher” have been substituted). According to the Supreme Court, the question, thus, that required for consideration was as to whether in respect of those housing projects which finished on or after 1st April, 2005, though sanctioned and started much earlier, the aforesaid stipulation contained to clause (d) also has to be satisfied. The Supreme Court noted that all the High Courts have held that since this amendment is prospective and has come into effect from 1st April, 2005, this condition would not apply to those housing projects which had been sanctioned and stared earlier even if they finished after 1st April, 2005.

The Supreme Court noted that with effect from 1st April, 2001, section 80-IB(10) stipulated that any housing project approved by the local authority before 31st March, 2001, was entitled to a deduction of 100 % of the profits derived in any previous year relevant to any assessment year from such housing project, provided—(i) the construction/ development of the said housing project commenced on after 1st October, 1998, and was completed before 31st March, 2003; (ii) the housing project was on a size of a plot of land which had a minimum area of one acre; and (iii) each individual residential unit had a maximum built-up area of 1,000 square feet, where such housing project was situated within the cities of Delhi or Mumbai or within 25 kms. from municipal limits of these cities, and a maximum built-up area of 1,500 square feet at any other place. Therefore, for the first time, a stipulation was added with reference to the date of approval, namely, that approval had to be accorded to the housing project by the local authority before 31st March, 2001. Before this amendment, there was no date prescribed for the approval being granted by the local authority to the housing project. Prior to this amendment, as long as the development/ construction commenced on or after 1st October, 1998, and was completed before 31st March, 2001, the assessee was entitled to the deduction. Also by this amendment, the date of completion was changed from 31st March, 2001, to 31st March, 2003. Everything else remained untouched.

Thereafter, by the Finance Act, 2003, further amendments were made to section 80-IB(10). The only changes that were brought about were that with effect from 1st April, 2002: (i) the housing project had to be approved before 31st March, 2005; and (ii) there was no time limit prescribed for completion of the said project. Though these changes were brought about by the Finance Act, 2003, the Legislature thought it fit tht these changes be deemed to have been brought into effect from 1st April, 2002. All the remaining provisions of section 80-IB(10) remained unchanged.

Thereafter, significant amendment, with which the Supreme Court was directly concerned, was carried out by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2004, with effect from 1st April, 2005. The Legislature made substantial changes in subsection (10). Several new conditions were incorporated for the first time, including the condition mentioned in clause (d). This condition/restriction was not on the statute book earlier when all these projects were sanctioned. Another important amendment was made by this Act to sub-section (14) of section 80-IB with effect from 1st April, 2005, and for the first time under clause (a) thereof the words “built-up area” were defined.

Prior to the insertion of section 80-IB(14)(a), in many of the rules and regulations of the local authority approving the housing project “built-up area” did not include projections and balconies. Probably, taking advantage of this fact, builders provided large balconies and projections making the residential units far bigger than as stipulated in section 80-IB(10), and yet claimed the deduction under the said provision. To plug this lacuna, clause (a) was inserted in section 80-IB(14) defining the words “built-up area” to mean the inner measurements of the residential unit at the floor level, including the projections and balconies, as increased by the thickness of the walls but did not include the common areas shared with other residential units.

According to the Supreme Court, the only way to resolve the issue was to hold that clause (d) is to be treated as inextricably linked with the approval and construction of the housing project and an assessee cannot be called upon to comply with the said condition when it is not in contemplation either of the assessee or even the Legislature, when the housing project was accorded approval by the local authorities.

The Supreme Court held that by way of an amendment in the form of clause (d), an attempt is made to restrict the size of the said shops and/or commercial establishments. Therefore, by necessary implication, the said provision has to be read prospectively and not retrospectively. As is clear from the amendment, this provision came into effect only from the day the provision was substituted. Therefore, it cannot be applied to those projects which were sanctioned and commenced prior to 1st April, 2005, and completed by the stipulated date, though such stipulated date is after 1st April, 2005. According to the Supreme Court, these aspects were dealt with by various High Courts elaborately and convincingly in their judgments and had taken a correct view that the assesses were entitled to the benefit of section 80-IB(10). The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.

Section 24AA of the Surtax Act, vests in the Central Government the power to make exemption, reduction in rate or other modification in respect of surtax in favour of any class of foreign companies which are specified in s/s. (2), in regard to the whole or any part of the chargeable profits liable to tax under the Surtax Act. Sub-section (2) of section 24AA refers to two categories of foreign companies. The first is foreign companies with whom the Central Government has entered into agreements for association or participation, including participation by any authorised person, in any business consisting of the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. The second category of foreign companies mentioned in s/s. (2) is foreign companies that may be providing services or facilities or supplying any ship, aircraft, machinery or plant in connection with any business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils carried on by the Central Government or any authorised person. Specifically the section states that mineral oils will include petroleum and natural gas.

The exemption notification bearing No. G. S. R. 307(E), dated 31st March, 1983, specifically grants exemption in respect of surtax in favour of foreign companies with whom the Central Government has entered into agreements for association or participation of that Government or any authorised person in the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils.

The ONGC had executed agreements with different foreign companies for services or facilities or for supply of ship, aircraft, machinery and plant, as may be, all of which were to be used in connection with the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. Such agreements did not contemplate a direct association or participation of the ONGC in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils but involved the taking of services and facilities or use of plant or machinery which is connected with the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils.

In the above situation, the primary authority took the view that the agreements executed by the ONGC with the foreign companies being for services to be rendered and such agreements not being for association or participation in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils, would not be covered by the exemption notification in question which by its very language granted exemption only to foreign companies with whom there were agreements for participation by the Central Government or the person authorised in the business of prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils. The agreements in question, according to assessing authority, were, therefore “service agreements” and, hence, covered by sub-section (2)(b) of section 24AA of the Surtax Act and were, accordingly, beyond the purview of the exemption modification.

The said view was reversed by the learned Appellate Commissioner and upheld by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the appeal u/s. 260A of the Act, the High Court of Uttarakhand overturned the view taken by the Appellate Commissioner and the learned Tribunal.

The Supreme Court held that section 24AA of the Surtax Act vests power in the Central Government, inter-alia, to grant exemption to foreign companies with whom agreements have been executed by the Central Government for association or participation in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils and also to foreign companies who are providing support services or facilities or making available plant and machinery in connection with the business of prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils in which the Central Government or an authorised person is associated. In other words, the power to grant exemption is two-fold and covers agreements directly associated with the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils or contracts facilitating or making available services in connection with such a business. There is nothing in the provisions of the Act which could have debarred the Central Government from granting exemptions to both categories of foreign companies mentioned above or to confine the grant of exemption to any one or a specified category of foreign companies. The Notification No. G. S. R. 307(E), dated 31st March, 1983, however grants exemption only to foreign companies with whom the Central Government had executed agreements for direct association or participation by the Central Government or the person authorised by it (ONGC) in the prospecting or extraction or production of mineral oils. In other words, the exemption notification confines or restricts the scope of the exemption to only one category of foreign companies which has been specifically enumerated in sub-section (2)(a) of section 24AA of the Surtax Act. The Second category of foreign companies that may be providing services as enumerated in sub-section (2)(b) of section 24AA is specifically omitted in the exemption notification. The power u/s. 24AA of the Surtax Act, is wide enough to include even this category of foreign companies. The omission of this particular category of foreign companies in the exemption notification, notwithstanding the wide amplitude and availability of the power u/s. 24AA, clearly reflects a conscious decision on the part of the Central Government to confine the scope of the exemption notification to only those foreign companies that are enumerated in and covered by sub-section 2(a) of section 24AA of the Surtax Act.

The Supreme Court affirmed the orders of the High Court and dismissed the appeals.

The appellant – ONGC and a non-resident/foreign company one M/s. Foramer France had entered into an agreement by which the non-resident company had agreed to make available supervisory staff and personnel having experience and expertise for operation and management of drilling rigs Sagar Jyoti and Sagar Pragati for the assessment year 1985-86 and the drilling rig Sagar Ratna for the assessment year 1986-87.

The appellant – ONGC has been assessed in a representative capacity on behalf of the foreign company with whom it had executed agreements for services to be rendered by such company in connection with prospecting extraction or production of mineral oils by ONGC. The primary/assessing authority took the view that the assessments should be made u/s. 44D of the Act and not section 44BB of the Act. The Appellate Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the views of the assessing authorities leading to the institution of appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court overturned the view taken by the Appellate Commissioner and the Tribunal and held the payments made to be liable for assessment u/s. 44D of the Act.

The High Court took the view that under the agreement, payment to M/s. Foramer France was required to be made at the rate of 3,450 $ per day and that the contract clearly contemplated rendering of technical services by personnel of the non-resident company as the contract did not mention that the personnel of the non-resident company were also carrying out the work of drilling of wells and as the company had received fees for rendering service, the payments made were liable to be taxed under the provisions of section 44D of the Act.

Aggrieved, the ONGC has filed appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that a careful reading of the provisions of the Act goes to show that u/s. 44BB(1) in the case of a non-resident providing services or facilities in connection with or supplying plant and machinery used or to be used in prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils the profit and gains from such business chargeable to tax is to be calculated at a sum equal to 10 per cent of the aggregate of the amounts paid or payable to such non-resident assessee as mentioned in s/s. (2). On the other hand, section 44D contemplates that if the income of a foreign company with which the Government or an Indian concern had an agreement executed before 1st April, 1976, or on any date thereafter but before April, 2003 the computation of income would be made as contemplated under the aforesaid section 44D. Explanation (a) to section 44D, however, specifies that “fees for technical services” as mentioned in section 44D would have the same meaning as in Explanation 2 to clause (vii) of section 9(1). The said Explanation, defines “fees for technical services” to mean consideration for rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services. However, the later part of the Explanation excludes from consideration for the purposes of the expression, i.e., “fees for technical services” any payment received for construction, assembly, mining or like project undertaken by the recipient or consideration which would be chargeable under the head “Salaries”. Fees for technical services, therefore, by virtue of the aforesaid Explanation would not include payments made in connection with a mining project.

The Supreme Court noted that the Income-tax Act does not define the expressions “mines” or “minerals”. The said expressions however were found defined and explained in the Mines Act, 1952, and the Oil Fields (Development and Regulations) Act, 1948. The Supreme Court having regard to the said definition and to the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, held that drilling operations for the purpose of production of petroleum would clearly amount to a mining activity or a mining operation. Viewed thus, it was the proximity of the works contemplated under an agreement, executed with a non-resident assessee or a foreign company, with mining activity or a mining operation that would be crucial for the determination of the question whether the payments made under such an agreement to the non-resident assessee or the foreign company is to be assessed u/s. 44BB or section 44D of the Act. The Supreme Court noted that the Central Board of Direct Taxes had accepted the said test and had in fact issued a Circular as far back as 22nd October, 1990, to the effect that mining operations and the expressions “mining projects” or “like projects” occurring in Explanation 2 to section 9(1) of the Act would cover rendering of service like imparting of training and carrying out drilling operations for exploration of and extraction of oil and natural gas and, hence, payments made under such agreement to a non-resident/foreign company would be chargeable to tax under the provisions of section 44BB and not section 44D of the Act.

According to the Supreme Court, it was not possible to take any other view if the works or services mentioned under a particular agreement was directly associated or inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils. Keeping in mind the above provisions and looking into each of the contracts involved in the group of cases before it, it found that the pith and substance of each of the contracts/agreements was inextricably connected with prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oil. The dominant purpose of each of such agreement was for prospecting, extraction or production of mineral oils though there would be certain ancillary works contemplated thereunder. The Supreme Court therefore held that the payments made by ONGC and received by the non-resident assessees or foreign companies under the said contracts was more appropriately assessable under the provisions of section 44BB and not section 44D of the Act.

The assessee, a private limited company, had an industrial unit at Majiwada, Thane, which was notified urban area as per notification dated 22nd September, 1967 issued u/s. 280Y(d) for the purpose of Chapter XXII-B. With a view to shift its industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area at Kurukumbh Village, Pune District, Maharashtra, it sold its land, building and plant and machinery situated at Majiwada, Thane to Shree Vardhman Trust for a consideration of Rs.1,20,00,000, and after deducting an amount of Rs.11,62,956, had earned a capital gain of Rs.1,08,33,044. Since it intended to shift its industrial undertaking from an urban area to a non-urban area, out of the capital gain so earned, the appellant paid by way of advances, various amounts to different persons for purchase of land, plant and machinery, construction of factory building, etc. Such advances amounted to Rs.1,11,42,973 in the year 1991-92. The appellant claimed exemption u/s. 54G of the Income-tax Act on the entire capital gain earned from the sale proceeds of its erstwhile industrial undertaking situated in Thane in view of the advances so made being more than the capital gain made by it. Section 54G was introduced by the Finance Act, 1987 with effect from assessment year 1988-89.

The Assessing Officer imposed a tax on capital gains, refusing to grant exemption to the appellant u/s. 54G. According to the Assessing Officer, non-urban area had not been notified by the Central Government and therefore the plea of shifting the non-urban area could not be accepted. Further, it could not be said that giving advance to different concerns meant utilisation of money for acquiring the assets. Hence, failure to deposit the capital gain in the Capital Gains Deposit Account by the assessee the claim could not be allowed.

The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dismissed the appellant’s appeal. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal however, allowed the assessee’s appeal stating that even an agreement to purchase is good enough and that the Explanation to section 54G being declaratory in nature would be retrospective.

The High Court reversed the judgment of the Incometax Appellate Tribunal and held that as the notification declaring Thane to be an urban area stood repealed with the repeal of the section under which it was made, the appellant did not satisfy the basic condition necessary to attract section 54G, namely, that a transfer had to be made from an urban area to a non-urban area. Further, the expression “purchase” in section 54G could not be equated with the expression “towards purchase” and, therefore, admittedly as land, plant and machinery had not been purchased in the assessment year in question, the exemption contained in section 54G had to be denied.

The Supreme Court held that on a conjoint reading of the Budget Speech, Notes on clauses and Memorandum Explaining the Finance Bill of 1987, it was clear that the idea of omitting section 280ZA and introducing on the same date section 54G was to do away with the tax credit certificate scheme together with the prior approval required by the Board and to substitute the repealed provision with the new scheme contained in section 54G. It was true that section 280Y(d) was only omitted by the Finance Act, 1990, and was not omitted together with section 280ZA. However, this would make no material difference inasmuch as section 280Y(d) was a definition section defining ‘urban area” for the purpose of section 280ZA only and for no other purposes. It was clear that once section 280ZA was omitted from the statute book, section 280Y(d) had no independent existence and would for all practical purposes also be “dead”. Quite apart from this, section 54G(1) by its Explanation introduced the very definition contained in section 280Y(d) in the same terms. Obviously, both provisions were not expected to be applied simultaneously and it was clear that the Explanation to section 54G(1) repealed by implication section 280Y(d). Further, from a reading of the Notes on Clauses and the Memorandum of the Finance Bill, 1990, it was clear that section 280Y(d) which was omitted with effect from 1st April 1, 1990, was so omitted because it had become “redundant”. It was redundant because it had no independent existence, apart from providing a definition of “urban area” for the purpose of section 280ZA which had been omitted with effect from the very date that section 54G was inserted, namely, 1st April, 1988.

The Supreme Court further held that the idea of section 24 of the General Clauses Act is, as its marginal note shows, to continue uninterrupted subordinate legislation that may be made under a Central Act that is repealed and re-enacted with or without modification. It being clear in the present case that section 280ZA which was repealed by omission and re-enacted with modification in section 54G, the notification declaring Thane to be an urban area dated 22nd September, 1967, would continue under and for the purposes of section 54G. It was clear, therefore, that the impugned judgment in not referring to section 24 of the General Clauses Act at all had thus fallen into error.

The Supreme Court for all the aforesaid reasons was therefore, of the view that on omission of section 280ZA and its re-enactment with modification in section 54G, section 24 of the General Clauses Act would apply, and the notification of 1967, declaring Thane to be an urban area, would be continued under and for the purposes of section 54G. The Supreme Court held that a reading of section 54G makes it clear that the assessee is given a window of three years after the date on which transfer has taken place to “purchase” new machinery or plant or “acquire” building or land. The High Court had completely missed the window of three years given to the assessee to purchase or acquire machinery and building or land. This is why the expression used in section 54G(2) is “which is not utilised by him for all or any of the purposes aforesaid.” According to the Supreme Court, it was clear that for the assessment year in question all that was required for the assessee to avail of the exemption contained in the section was to “utilize” the amount of capital gains for purchase and acquisition of new machinery or plant and building or land. It was undisputed that the entire amount claimed in the assessment year in question had been so “utilized” for purchase and/or acquisition of new machinery or plant and land or building. If the High Court was right, the assessee had to purchase and/or acquire machinery, plant, land and building within the same assessment year in which the transfer takes place. Further, the High Court missed the key words “not utilized” in sub-section (2) which would show that it was enough that the capital gain made by the assessee should only be “utilized” by him in the assessment year in question for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, that is towards purchase and acquisition of plant and machinery, and land and building. Advances paid for the purpose of purchase and/or acquisition of the aforesaid assets would certainly amount to utilisation by the assessee of the capital gains made by him for the purpose of purchasing and/or acquiring the aforesaid assets.

In the first judgment of the High Court dated 16th September, 2010, various points on the merits were gone into, inter alia, as to whether deductions to be made u/s. 80-IB of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were allowable on facts and whether transport subsidies were or were not available together with other incentive. Ultimately, the High Court after stating in paragraph 2 that two substantial questions of law arose u/s. 260A of the Income-tax Act went on to answer the two questions. The first question so framed was answered in the negative, that is in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee. However, the second question was answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee, and against Revenue, and the appeal was disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Against the aforesaid judgment dated 16th September, 2010, a Review Petition was filed by the assessee before the very Division Bench. In a long judgement dated 8th April, 2013, the Division Bench recalled its earlier order dated 16th September, 2010 for the reason that there was an omission to formulate the substantial questions of law. Before the Supreme Court Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Revenue, assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 8th April, 2013, stating that it was factually incorrect that no substantial question of law have been framed and that such questions were to be found in the very beginning of the judgment dated 16th September, 2010, itself. He further argued, referring to section 260A(7), that only those provisions of the Civil Procedure Code could be looked into for the purposes of section 260A as were relevant to the disposal of appeals, and since the review provision contained in the Code of Civil Procedure were not so referred to, the High Court would have no jurisdiction u/s. 260A to review such judgment.

The Supreme Court noted that by the review order dated 8th April, 2013, the Division Bench felt that it should not have gone into the matter at all given the fact that on an earlier occasion, before 16th September, 2010, it had reserved the judgment on whether substantial questions of law in fact exist at all or not. This being the case, in a lengthy order the Division Bench has thought it fit to recall its own earlier judgment.

The Supreme Court in such circumstances was not inclined to interfere with the judgment in view of what had been recorded in the impugned judgment dated 8th April, 2013. The Supreme Court further held that High Courts being courts of record under article 215 of the Constitution of India, the power of review would in fact be inherent in them. Also on reading of section 260A(7), it was clear that the said section did not purport in any manner to curtail or restrict the application of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 260A(7) only states that all the provisions that would apply qua appeals in the Code of Civil Procedure would apply to appeals u/s. 260A. That does not in any manner suggest either that the other provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are necessarily excluded or that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is in any manner affected.

The appellant was assessed to wealth-tax under the Act for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1986-87. The valuation of the property which was the subject matter of wealth-tax under the Act was the urban land appurtenant to the Bangalore Palace (hereinafter referred to as “the property”). The total extent of the property was 554 acres or 1837365.36 sq. mtrs. It comprised of residential units, non-residential units and land appurtenant thereto, roads and masonry structures along the contour and the vacant land. The vacant land measured 11,66,377.34 sq.mtrs. The aforesaid property was the private property of the late Sri Jaychamarajendra Wodeyar, the former ruler of the princely State of Mysore. He died on 23rd September, 1974. After the death of Sri Jaychamarajendra Wodeyar, his son Sri Srikantadatta Wodeyar, the assessee applied to the Settlement Commission to get the dispute settled with regard to valuation of property and lands appurtenant thereto for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1976-77.

The application of the assessee before the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1976- 77 was disposed of on 29th September, 1988 laying down norms for valuation of the property. The Wealthtax Officer adopted the value as per the Settlement Commission for the assessment years 1976-77, 1977- 78 and 1978-79 at Rs.13.18 crore (for both land and buildings). For the assessment year 1979-80, since there was no report of the Valuation Officer, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) worked out the value of the property at Rs.19.96 crore for the assessment year 1979- 80, which was adopted by the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment year 1980-81 as well. For the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84, the Wealth-tax Officer fixed the value of land and building at Rs.18.78 crore, Rs.29.85 crore and Rs.29.85 crore, respectively. For the assessment year 1984-85, the Wealth-tax Officer took the value at Rs.31.22 crore on the basis of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) for earlier years.

The orders of the Wealth-tax Officer passed under the Act fixing the value of the land for different assessment years for the purpose of the Act was challenged by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals). In these appeals, the contention of the assessee was that the value of the property was covered by the Ceiling Act for which maximum compensation that could be received by the assessee was only Rs.2 lakh. The appeals filed for the assessment years, namely, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983- 84 were disposed of by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by a common order dated 9th January, 1990, in which he made slight modifications to value adopted for the assessment year 1981-82 and confirmed the valuation of the Wealth-tax Officer for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. However, in respect of appeals relating to the assessment years 1977-78 to 1980-81, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed the orders dated 31st July, 1990, accepting that the urban land appurtenant to the property be valued at Rs.2,00,000. Similar orders came to be passed by the Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) for the assessment years 1984-85 and 1985-86 also. Against these orders of the Commissioner (Appeals), both the assessee as well as the Revenue/ Department went up in appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore.

The issue before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was only with regard to the valuation of vacant land attached to the property since the assessee had accepted the valuation in regard to residential and non-residential structures within the said property area and appurtenant land thereto.

The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, passed the order directing the vacant land be valued at Rs.2 lakh for each year from the assessment years 1977-78 to 1985-86. Its reasoning was that the competent authority under the Ceiling Act had passed an order determining that the vacant land was in excess of the ceiling limit, and had ordered that action be taken to acquire the excess land under the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, 1901. And under the Land Ceiling Act, an embargo was placed on the assessee to sell the subject land and exercise full rights. The assessee was only eligible to maximum compensation of Rs.2 lakh under the Ceiling Act. Hence, given these facts and circumstances the subject land could only be valued at Rs.2 lakh for wealthtax purposes on the valuation date for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1985-86.

Against the order of the Tribunal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax sought reference before the Karnataka High Court in respect of the assessment years, namely, 1977-78 to 1985-86 arising out of the consolidated order of the Tribunal.

The High Court, vide the impugned order dated 13th June, 2005 holding that although the prohibition and restriction contained in the Ceiling Act had the effect of decreasing the value of the property, still the value of the land cannot be the maximum compensation that is payable under the provision of the Ceiling Act. Thus, the question referred had been answered against the assessee.

The Supreme Court observed that the valuation of the asset in question has to be in the manner provided u/s. 7 of the Act. Such a valuation has to be on the valuation date which has reference to the last day of the previous year as defined u/s. 3 of the Income-tax Act, if an assessment was to be made under that Act for that year. In other words, it is 31st March, immediately preceding the assessment year. The valuation arrived at as on that date of the asset is the valuation on which wealth-tax is assessable. It is clear from the reading of section 7 of the Act that the Assessing Officers has to keep hypothetical situation in mind, namely, if the asset in question is to be sold in the open market, what price it would fetch. The Assessing Officer has to form an opinion about the estimation of such a price that is likely to be received if the property were to be sold. There is no actual sale and only a hypothetical situation of a sale is to be contemplated by the Assessing Officers. The tax officer has to form an opinion about the estimated price if the asset were to be sold in the assumed market and the estimated price would be the one which an assumed wiling purchaser would pay for it. On these reckoning, the asset has to be valued in the ordinary way.

The Supreme Court noted that the effect of the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 in the context of instant appeals was that the vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit was not acquired by the State Government as notification u/s. 10(1) of the Ceiling Act had not been issued. However, the process had started as the assessee had filed statement in the prescribed form as per the provisions of section 6(1) of the Ceiling Act and the competent authority had also prepared a draft statement u/s. 8 which was duly served upon the assessee. The fact remained that so long as the Act was operative, by virtue of section 3 the assessee was not entitled to hold any vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Order was also passed to the effect that the maximum compensation payable was Rs.2 lakh.

The Supreme Court held that the Assessing Officer took into consideration the price which the property would have fetched on the valuation date, i.e., the market price, as if it was not under the rigours of the Ceiling Act. Such estimation of the price which the asset would have fetched if sold in the open market on the valuation date(s), would clearly be wrong even on the analogy/rationale given by the High Court as it accepted that restrictions and prohibitions under the Ceiling Act would have depressing effect on the value of the asset. Therefore, the valuation as done by the Assessing Officer could not have been accepted. The Supreme Court observed that it was not oblivious of those categories of buyers who may buy “disputed properties” by taking risks with the hope that legal proceedings may ultimately be decided in favour of the assessee and in such a eventuality they were going to get much higher value. However, as stated above, hypothetical presumptions of such sales are to be discarded as one has to keep in mind the conduct of a reasonable person and “ordinary way” of the presumptuous sale.

The Supreme Court held that when such a presumed buyer is not going to offer more than Rs.2 lakh, the obvious answer is that the estimated price which such asset would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date(s) would not be more than Rs.2 lakh. The Supreme Court having held so pointed out one aspect which was missed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal as well while deciding the case in favour of the assessee. The compensation of Rs.2 lakh was in respect of only the “excess land” which was covered by sections 3 and 4 of the Ceiling Act. The Supreme Court held that the total vacant land for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act is not only excess land but other part of the land which would have remained with the assessee in any case. Therefore, the valuation of the excess land, which was the subject matter of the Ceiling Act, would be Rs.2 lakh. To that market value of the remaining land would have to be added for the purpose of arriving at the valuation for payment of wealth-tax.