COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. NISHKHULANAND SETTELEMENT

PDF · subscribers
WTR/150/1996HC GujaratGJHC24022080199629 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 question referred to it in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reasoning provided is that the facts and the question involved are similar to those in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was decided by the same bench on the same day. The operative direction is that the reference stands disposed of accordingly. The principle established is that when facts and issues are identical to a previously decided case, the same reasoning and outcome will apply. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax has referred a question of law to the High Court of Gujarat under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, had passed an order directing the Assessing Officer to charge wealth tax at the normal rate, as opposed to the maximum marginal rate of 3% charged by the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO). The High Court noted that the facts and the question involved in this reference were similar to those in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93, which was also decided on the same day.

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 WTO. The Revenue's contention is that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The Assessee's contention is not recorded in the judgment. The Tribunal's decision is the subject of the reference.

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 150 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 NISHKHULANAND SETTELEMENT

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

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 →