2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru

162 ITR 888Supreme Court of India1986#4981 most cited

What is 2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru authority for?

Property is part of net wealth only if it belongs to the assessee, not merely if it is in their possession without a right to possession or ownership.

23

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,314 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Commissioner of Income Tax v. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru · 162 ITR 888 · net wealth · belonging of asset · ownership · possession · right to be in possession · wealth-tax

Issues it is cited on

section 153a(b)section 292c(1)section 153c(1)section 132(4a)section 22section 292csection 292loose papersdocuments seizedsatisfaction notesection 29section 153d

Judgments citing 2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. v. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru

Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Harjeev Aggarwal

ITA/8/2004HC Delhi10 Mar 2016

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…n 31st March 1989 holding that notwithstanding that the property had not been formally registered in its name, the Assessee was the real owner of the property. It was held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT (1986) 162 ITR 888 was not applicable in the facts of the case. It was further held that the building in any case was covered by Section 40 (3) (vi) of the Finance Act 1983 and the Assessee was its real owner. 8. As far as AY 1990-91 is concerned, the AO passed an order on 17th March 1993 again determining the value of property as per Schedule III of WTA a…

Raj Dulari Bhasin vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

ITA/11/2004HC Delhi21 Dec 2015

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

Section 16(3)

…n 31st March 1989 holding that notwithstanding that the property had not been formally registered in its name, the Assessee was the real owner of the property. It was held that the decision of the Supreme Court in Nawab Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan v. CWT (1986) 162 ITR 888 was not applicable in the facts of the case. It was further held that the building in any case was covered by Section 40 (3) (vi) of the Finance Act 1983 and the Assessee was its real owner. 8. As far as AY 1990-91 is concerned, the AO passed an order on 17th March 1993 again determining the value of property as per Schedule III of WTA a…

Official Liquidator

OLR/6/2015HC Karnataka10 Feb 2015

Bench: RAVI MALIMATH

Section 27

…b Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax, Date of Judgment 30-08-2018 W.T.A.No.1/2015 & Connected Matters The Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. Vs. Smt. Meenakshi Devi Avaru through LRs. and Another 90/113 Hyderabad : 1986 162 ITR 888 (SC) and following the aforesaid judgment of Bishwanath Chatterjee (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the liability to Wealth-Tax arises because of the belonging of the asset and not otherwise and mere possession, or joint possession, unaccompanied by the right to be in possession or ownership of property, would, therefore, not b…