COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. MANAVATA SETTLEMENT

PDF · subscribers
WTR/121/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022051199629 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 oral judgment, 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 reasons. The reasoning from the earlier judgment would apply. The reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The operative direction was to charge wealth tax at the normal rate, as against the maximum marginal rate of 3% previously charged by the WTO.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, referred a question to the High Court of Gujarat under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The reference concerned the Wealth Tax Reference No. 121 of 1996, with the Commissioner of Wealth Tax as the petitioner and Manavata Settlement as the respondent. The High Court noted that the facts and the question involved were similar to another case, Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, decided on the same day. Therefore, the court did not deem it necessary to reproduce the specific facts of this case.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to charge wealth tax at the normal rate as against the maximum marginal rate of 3% charged by the Wealth Officer (WTO)? Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the question referred implies that the assessee would have argued for the normal rate of tax. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, would have contended that the Wealth Officer was correct in charging the maximum marginal rate of 3%. The reference itself is initiated by the revenue, indicating their disagreement with the Tribunal's direction.

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 121 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 MANAVATA SETTLEMENT

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

Appearance: MR P.G. DESAI 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 charge rate at normal rate as against the maximum marginal rate of 3% charged by the WTO?"

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 →