COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. ARTI NAP TRUST

PDF · subscribers
WTR/212/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022142199629 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 of Gujarat, in its judgment delivered by R.K. Abichandani, J., answered the question referred to it in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court stated that since the facts and the question involved were similar to Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was decided on the same day, it was not necessary to reproduce the facts or provide a separate detailed reasoning. The principle applied is that the ITAT's decision to levy wealth tax at the normal rate was upheld. The reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad concerning a decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad. The reference pertains to Wealth Tax Reference No. 212 of 1996. The assessee is Arti Nap Trust. The ITAT's order directed the Assessing Officer to levy wealth tax on the assessee trust at the normal rate. The High Court notes that the facts and the question involved are similar to another case, Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, decided on the same day. Therefore, the detailed facts of this specific case were not reproduced in the judgment.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to levy the tax on the assessee trust at the normal rate? Assessee's Contention: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, is seeking to challenge the ITAT's direction to levy wealth tax at the normal rate. The specific arguments of the Revenue are not detailed in this judgment, as it relies on the reasoning from a previously decided similar case (Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93).

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 212 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 ARTI NAP 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 levy the tax on the assessee trust at the normal rate?"

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) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →