COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. BRINDA BENEFICIARY TRUST

WTR/111/1995HC GujaratGJHC24022793199529 January 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessment year is not explicitly stated. The order under challenge is from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. The dispute concerns the levy of wealth tax on the assessee, Brinda Beneficiary Trust, under Section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act. The procedural history involves a reference made by the Commissioner to the High Court for the Tribunal's opinion on a specific legal question.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court of Gujarat, in its oral judgment, referred to a similar question that had been answered by them on the same day in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. The Court stated that since the facts and the question involved were almost identical, they did not find it necessary to reproduce the facts of the present case. For the reasons given in their judgment and order in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, the Court answered the question referred to them in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that in the assessment of the assessee under Section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, the wealth tax was leviable on the aggregate value of life interest and reversionary interest only if such interests exceeded the taxable limit prescribed in the wealth tax rate schedule of the relevant year? (Question of law, turning on Section 21(4) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957). Assessee's Contention: The assessee relies on the judgment in the case of Haresh Anitha Trust (173 ITR 103). Revenue's Contention: The revenue has not recorded arguments in the judgment. The judgment states the respondent (assessee) was served, and the petitioner (Commissioner) appeared through counsel. The question is referred by the Commissioner.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 27(1),Section 21(4)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 111 of 1995

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?

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 →