SULOCHANABEN NATVERLAL PATEL vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WTR/45/1991HC GujaratGJHC24013714199121 December 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xvia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980. This decision was based on the court's prior judgment in a similar case, Wealth Tax Reference No. 34 of 1991, which was disposed of on the same date, December 21, 2002. In that prior judgment, the court had answered the identical question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Therefore, following its own precedent, the court answered the question in the affirmative, granting the exemption to the assessee. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Wealth Tax Reference No. 45 of 1991 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessee, Sulochana Natverlal Patel, is challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The reference arises from a question of law concerning the assessee's entitlement to an exemption under Section 5(1)(xvia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, specifically in relation to National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980. The procedural history indicates that a similar question was raised in Wealth Tax Reference No. 34 of 1991, which this court had already decided.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide one question of law: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xvia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980? The judgment does not record specific arguments from either the assessee or the revenue. However, the question itself frames the core dispute: the applicability of the exemption provision to the specified gold bonds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27(1),Section 5(1)(xvia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 45 of 1991

For Approval and Signature:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA

============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the concerned : NO Magistrate/Magistrates,Judge/Judges,Tribunal/Tribunals?

-------------------------------------------------------------- SULOCHANABEN NATVERLAL PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 45 of 1991 MR JP SHAH for Petitioner No. 1 MR MANISH R BHATT for Respondent No. 1

--------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA

Date of decision: 21/12/2002

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE)

The following question of law, arising out of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C', has been referred to this court for its opinion under the provisions of sec. 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the exemption under sec. 5(1)(xvia) in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980?"

2.

Similar question had been raised in Wealth Tax Reference No. 34 of 1991. This court has disposed of the said reference by answering the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue by its judgment dated 21.12.2002. The question referred to this court in this reference is also, therefore, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

(A.R. Dave, J.)

(K.M. Mehta, J.) (hn)

More judgments on Section 27(1)

All 322 judgments and leading authorities on Section 27(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →