COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. BRAHMA TRUST
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. This implies that the Tribunal was correct in directing the Assessing Officer to levy wealth tax on the assessee trust at the normal rate. The reasoning is based on the High Court's decision in a similar case, Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, decided on the same day. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The specific principle or ratio decidendi from the earlier case is not detailed here, but it supports the assessee's position.
What were the facts?
This is a Wealth Tax Reference No. 259 of 1996 before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax is the petitioner, and Brahma Trust is the respondent. The reference arises from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad. 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. The specific assessment year(s) and the amount in dispute are not explicitly stated in this 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? The Revenue (Petitioner) contends that the Tribunal erred in directing the levy of wealth tax at the normal rate. The Assessee (Respondent) likely argued for the levy at the normal rate. The judgment does not explicitly detail the arguments of each side beyond the question referred.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 259 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?
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus BRAHMA 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)
- Pankaj Chhatwal, Delhi vs DCIT Circle-49(1), DelhiITA 4142/DEL/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed23 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019
- DCIT, Central Circle-2, Noida vs Ajay Goel, HaryanaITA 1459/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: Disposed18 Aug 2025AY 2020-21
- Mukesh Kumar, Sonipat vs ITO, SonipatITA 4142/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: Disposed13 Feb 2025AY 2012-13
- Bochasanwasi Shree Akshar Purushottam… vs Commissioner of Customs, AhmedabadTAXAP/526/20228 Sept 2022
- K.Shanthikumar, Chennai vs DCIT, ChennaiITA 542/CHNY/2017[2013-14]Status: Disposed8 Sept 2021AY 2013-14
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026