COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. UPAMA KRUNAL TRUST

PDF · subscribers
WTR/289/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022219199629 January 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reasoning is that the facts and the question involved are similar to those in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was decided by the same bench on the same day. Therefore, the High Court adopted the reasoning from that prior judgment. The ratio decidendi is that a discretionary trust is entitled to basic exemption, as per the reasoning in the earlier, similar case. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, to the High Court of Gujarat under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The reference concerns the assessment year(s) not explicitly stated but implied to be similar to Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. The order under challenge is that of the ITAT, which directed the Assessing Officer to allow basic exemption to the assessee, Upama Krunal Trust. The Revenue is the petitioner, and the assessee is the respondent. The amount in dispute is not specified. The procedural history is that the ITAT referred a question of law to the High Court for its opinion.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow basic exemption when the assessee trust was a discretionary trust? (Question of law and fact, concerning the Wealth Tax Act, 1957). Assessee's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's contentions: Not recorded in the judgment. The judgment states that the facts and the question involved are almost identical to Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, and the decision will be based on the reasoning provided in that case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 289 of 1996

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.

Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?

-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus UPAMA KRUNAL TRUST --------------------------------------------------------------

Appearance: B.B.NAYAK with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner Respondent served

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

CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE Date of decision: 29/01/98

ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per R.K.Abichandani,J.)

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has referred for the opinion of this Court the following

question under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. "Whether, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow basic exemption when the assessee trust was a discretionary trust?"

A similar question has been answered by us today in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. Since the facts are similar and the question involved almost identical, we do not find it necessary to reproduce the facts of this case. For the reasons given by us in our judgement and order delivered in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93 today, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

----

*/Mohandas

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 →