1 wtxa2808-10++ sas IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.2807 OF 2010 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.2808 OF 2010 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.2925 OF 2010 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.2926 OF 2010 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.3421 OF 2010 Nutan Warehousing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Pune ..Appellant. V/s. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Circlr-2, Pune & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.N. Inamdar, senior Advocate with V.S. Hadade for the appellant. Mr. Vimal Gupta for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATED : 16TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. :- 1. Wealth Tax Appeal No.2807 of 2010 is not on Board. By consent of the parties taken on board. 2. The question raised in these appeals is, whether ITAT was 2 wtxa2808-10++ right in holding that the warehouses used in warehousing business are assets within the definition of 2(ea) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. In the income tax proceedings in the assessee's own case, this Court by its decision dated 18/12/2010 reported in 326 ITR 94 (Bom) remanded back the matter to the assessing officer to consider the question as to whether the income derived by the assessee from warehousing activity was the business income and whether dominant purpose of letting out the warehouse was the commercial activity of the assessee. Since the activity carried on by the assessee is being reconsidered in the income tax proceedings, by consent, the impugned order passed by the ITAT in wealth tax proceedings are quashed and set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the assessing officer for reconsideration of the issue afresh and in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Inamdar, learned senior Advocate for the assessee states that the assessee would not claim refund of the tax paid pursuant to the orders impugned in these appeals. 4. All the appeals are disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. (SMT. R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)