NATVERLAL GAFURBHAI PATEL HUF vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
WTR/47/1991HC GujaratGJHC24013716199121 December 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its judgment dated 21/12/2002, answered the question of law in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. This decision was based on a previous judgment of the same court in Wealth Tax Reference No. 34 of 1991, which dealt with a similar question. The court found 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. The ratio decidendi is that such bonds qualify for the specified exemption. The reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case involves a Wealth Tax Reference No. 47 of 1991 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The assessee is Natverlal Gafurbhai Patel HUF, and the respondent is the Commissioner of Income Tax. The reference arises from an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench 'C'. The specific issue concerns the assessee's entitlement to an exemption under Section 5(1)(xvia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, concerning National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980. A similar question was previously decided by the High Court in Wealth Tax Reference No. 34 of 1991.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xvia) in respect of the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980? Assessee's Contention: The assessee contended that they were entitled to the exemption under Section 5(1)(xvia) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for the National Defence Gold Bonds, 1980. Revenue's Contention: The revenue contended that the assessee was not entitled to the exemption. The judgment does not explicitly detail the revenue's specific arguments or any authorities/precedents they relied upon, other than implicitly opposing the assessee's claim.

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 47 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- NATVERLAL GAFURBHAI PATEL HUF Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 47 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 →