COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. ULAPI KRUNAL TRUST

PDF · subscribers
WTR/287/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022217199629 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 by the ITAT in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Court noted that a similar question had been answered by them on the same day in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. Since the facts and the question involved were almost identical to that previous case, the Court found it unnecessary to reproduce the facts of the present case. The reasoning for the decision is based on the judgment and order delivered in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. The specific finding on the issue of basic exemption for a discretionary trust is implicitly affirmed based on the prior judgment.

What were the facts?

This case involves a reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad, to the High Court of Gujarat. The reference concerns a question of law arising under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The assessee is Ulapi Krunal Trust, and the petitioner is the Commissioner of Wealth Tax. The assessment year(s) are not explicitly stated. The order or action under challenge is the ITAT's direction to the Assessing Officer to allow basic exemption to the assessee trust, despite it being a discretionary trust. The amount in dispute is not stated. The procedural history is that the ITAT has referred a specific question for the opinion of the High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing the Assessing Officer to allow basic exemption when the assessee trust was a discretionary trust? This question turns on the interpretation of provisions related to basic exemption under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and their applicability to discretionary trusts. Contentions: Assessee: Not recorded in the judgment. Revenue: Not recorded in the judgment.

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 287 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 ULAPI KRUNAL 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 allow basic exemption when the assessee trust was a discretionary trust?"

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 →