Allowed

V.K.Singhania. v. Shri S.Venugopalan and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2009WP/3622/1987

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, F.I. Rebello and J.H. Bhatia JJ, relying on the Madras High Court judgment, dismissed the challenge to specific Wealth Tax Rules and directed the Wealth Tax Officer to assess the Petitioners in terms of Schedule III, granting liberty to the revenue to rechallenge the order on appeal.

What did the court decide?

The Wealth Tax Officer is directed to assess the Petitioners in terms of Schedule III.

V.K.Singhania. Vs Shri S.Venugopalan and Ors. — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

hvn

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIFINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 96 OF 1987

¶5

Ajaypat K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents

¶6

WITH

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 1987

¶8

Vijaypat K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 1987

¶11

Ramapati G. Singhania

¶12

Ramapati G. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents

¶13

WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO. 3621 OF 1987

¶15

M.V. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Shri. S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents

¶16

WITH

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO. 3622 OF 1987

¶18

V.K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Shri. S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO. 3623 OF 1987

¶21

A.A. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Shri. S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 1987 G.V. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Shri. S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents

¶22

¶23

WITH

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO. 3626 OF 1987

¶25

Ushadevi Agarwal ... Petitioner Versus Shri. S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1743 OF 1986 Rampati Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1744 OF 1986 Rampati Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1746 OF 1986 Vijaypat K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3055 OF 1986 Ajaypat K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3056 OF 1986 Ashadevi Singhania ... Petitioner Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3063 OF 1986 Ushadevi Agarwal ... Petitioner Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3067 OF 1986 Ajaypat Singhania ... Petitioner

¶26

¶27

Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3068 OF 1986 Gautamhari Singhania ... Petitioner Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 98 OF 1987 Rampat Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3624 OF 1987 G.V. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus R.S. Rao and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3625 OF 1987 Smt. Ashadevi Singhania ... Petitioner Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3626 OF 1987 Ushadevi Agarwal ... Petitioner Versus S. Venugopalan and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 772 OF 1989 A.K. Shyapat Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 773 OF 1989 G.H.V. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 774 OF 1989 M.V. Shyapat Singhania ... Petitioner

¶28

¶29

Versus

¶30

Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents

¶31

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 775 OF 1989

¶32

Ashadevi Singhania ... Petitioner

¶33

Versus

¶34

Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents

¶35

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 776 OF 1989

¶36

Ushadevi Agarwal ... Petitioner Versus Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents

¶37

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 777 OF 1989

¶38

Ajaypat K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents

¶39

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 778 OF 1989

¶40

Vijaypat Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents

¶41

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 780 OF 1989

¶42

Ramapati G. Singhania ... Petitioner

¶43

Versus Surinderjit Singh and Ors. ... Respondents

¶44

WITH

¶45

WRIT PETITION NO. 1810 OF 1993

¶46

V.K. Singhania ... Petitioner Versus Ashokkumar Sarha and Ors. ... Respondents

¶47

WITH

¶48

WRIT PETITION NO. 1811 OF 1993

¶49

Ramapati G. Singhania and Ors. ... Petitioner Versus

¶50

¶51

Ashokkumar Saroha and Ors. ... Respondents

¶52

WRIT PETIT	WITH ION NO.	1812 OF	1993
Askshayapata Singhania	Versus	...	Petitioner
Ashok Kumar Saroha and Ors. WRIT PETIT	WITH ION NO.	... 3062 OF	Respondents 1986
Madhupati Vijaypat Singhania	Versus	...	Petitioner
S. Venugopalan and Ors. and Ors.		...	Respondents

¶53

Mr. R. Murlidhar with Mr. Niraj Sheth, Ms. Najma Sheikh and Ms. Pooja Karodia for the Petitioners.

¶54

Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for Respondents.

¶55

CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ.

¶56

DATED : 6th July, 2009

¶57

P.C.

¶58

It is not necessary to set out the facts or prayer clauses as prayed for. Suffice it to say that considering the judgment of the Madras High Court in Smt. Radha Gajapathi Raju and another Vs. District Valuation Officer and Others, 239 ITR 704, the judgment in Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Chhaganlal Gupta 227 ITR 729 and the judgment in C.W.T. Vs. Rajeshkumar Gandhi 219 ITR 408, the learned counsel does not press the challenge to Rule 2 of the Wealth Tax Rules or Rules 15, 16 of Schedule III.

¶59

Rule 2 was substituted by schedule III and that provision has been held to be procedural. We agree with the view taken by the Madras and Other High Courts. In other words, would apply to all pending proceedings. Considering that we direct the W.T.O. to assess the Petitioner in terms of schedule III and according to law.

¶60

¶61

The learned counsel submits that in the event revenue is aggrieved by the order of this court, they be granted a liberty to reiterate their challenge to Rule. 2. In our opinion that would be fair. Hence, liberty is granted in the event order of this court is taken in appeal, by the revenue. In the light of the above, other prayer clauses would not survive. Rule made absolute partly in as much as W.T.O. Is directed to assess the Petitioners in terms of Schedule III. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶62

(J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)

V.K.Singhania. v. Shri S.Venugopalan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.K.Singhania. v. Shri S.Venugopalan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Rajshri Productions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Deputy Commissoner of Sales Tax (App) Vii, Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Icici Bank Ltd. and 1 Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

M/S. Hakimee Construction Vs the Union of India and Others

Bal Jagannath Maharaj Pandit and Ors. Vs Honourable Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Ushadevi Agarwal Vs Shri S Venugopalan and Ors.

Ushaadevi Agarwal. Vs Shri S.Venugopalan and Ors.