COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX vs. RAMESH R INAMDAR

WTR/65/1986HC GujaratGJHC24011023198620 July 2001Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, meaning in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The reasoning appears to be based on the established legal precedents. The Tribunal's decision to apply Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, for property valuation was supported by the Special Bench order in the case of Shri Niranjan Narottam. This order, as acknowledged by the revenue, was upheld by the High Court itself in CWT v. Niranjan Narottam (173 ITR 693) and subsequently approved by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Ors. (210 ITR 886). Therefore, the High Court found no error in the Tribunal's holding and confirmed that the valuation should indeed be arrived at by applying Section 7(4). The reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

This case concerns a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad Bench 'A', to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The reference was made at the instance of the revenue. The assessee is Ramesh R Inamdar. The assessment years are not specified in the judgment. The order under challenge is the decision of the ITAT regarding the valuation of property for wealth tax assessment. The procedural history involves the ITAT referring a question of law to the High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The revenue appeared through its counsel, while the assessee, though served, did not appear.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in holding that the valuation of the property for the assessment years in question should be arrived at applying the provisions of Section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957? Assessee's Contentions: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue argued that the ITAT, in deciding the appeal, relied on a Special Bench order in the case of Shri Niranjan Narottam. This Special Bench order was upheld by the High Court in CWT v. Niranjan Narottam, 173 ITR 693. Furthermore, the revenue acknowledged that the High Court's view in Niranjan Narottam was also approved by the Supreme Court in CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Ors., 210 ITR 886. The revenue's argument implicitly suggests that the ITAT's reliance on the Special Bench order, which was subsequently upheld by higher courts, was correct, but the question posed by the revenue indicates a disagreement with the ITAT's conclusion.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27(1),Section 7(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 65 of 1986

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.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 Civil Judge? : NO

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

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 →