Case: Bennett Coleman &amp; Company Limited Times of India Bldg Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax

4. A few jurisdictional facts. There is no dispute that the society had granted no objection to the previous member to sell the property before 1.4.1993. There is also no dispute that there was an agreement to sell between the appellant and the previous owner and full consideration had been paid before 1.4.1993. There is also no dispute that the resolution was passed by the society admitting the appellant as a member before 1.4.1993. There is a further finding that the appellant themselves included the said property as their assets in their books for the Annual year

Reasoning: A reading of the said sub section would indicate, that the requirements are that the assessee must be a member and further that building or part thereof is allotted or leased to them. If these two conditions are satisfied then notwithstanding anything contained in the Act or any other law for the time being in force, such assessee would be deemed to be the owner of such building or part thereof and the valuation of such or part shall be included in computing the net wealth of thewe have already noted the Wealth Tax Act for considering the "assets" as that of the assesses does not require transfer of shares. All that it requires is admission to membership and allotment of a building or part of a building. Allotment to that extent does not require transfer of shares of the society. Section 4(7) of the Wealth Tax Act which is a central legislation has not incorporated by reference or otherwise the definition of the State Act, or the rules made thereunder for the purpose of reading the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act. That would not be possible considering that each State will have its own laws. What therefore, must be considered are the provisions and the requirements as contained in the Wealth Tax Act. The Act requires only two requirements firstly that the assessee must be a member and secondly the assessee shall be allotted a building or part of the building. In the instant case, as noticed by us, both the requirements are satisfied. Allotment being by purchaser from the previous member and the society giving its no objection to the sale and the assessee being put in possession before the relevant date by the previous member.8. On behalf of the appellant the learned counsel sought to place reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Late Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad (162 ITR 888) . In that case what the Supreme Court was concerned was the expression "belonging to" an assessee. On the facts there the Apex court noticed that there was no transfer of ownership of the property in the name of the vendee and the assessee continued to be the owner though in part performance of the contract the vendee had been put in possession. Admittedly the said sale deed entered into had not been registered.