COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. CENTRAL NOSE TRUST

PDF · subscribers
WTR/253/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022183199629 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 referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reasoning provided is that the facts and the question involved in this reference are almost identical to those in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was decided by the same bench on the same day. Therefore, the Court applied the reasons given in its judgment for Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93 to dispose of this reference. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The specific finding on the issue is that the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to levy wealth tax at the normal rate.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, to the High Court of Gujarat concerning the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax is the petitioner, and Central Nose Trust is the respondent assessee. The High Court notes that the facts of this case are similar to those in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was decided on the same day. Due to this similarity, the Court did not find it necessary to reproduce the specific facts of the present case. The procedural history indicates 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 levy the tax on the assessee trust at the normal rate? (Question of law and fact, concerning the rate of wealth tax applicable to the assessee trust). Assessee's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the assessee. However, the Tribunal's direction to levy tax at the normal rate implies the assessee likely argued for this treatment. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue. However, the reference to the High Court by the Commissioner of Wealth Tax suggests the Revenue disagreed with the Tribunal's direction regarding the rate of tax.

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 253 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 CENTRAL NOSE 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) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →