Disposed
The Commisioner of Wealth Tax Hyd. v. Nb.Oolia Kulsum Hyd.
Telangana HCRC/97/1997
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
G. CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA…
What the court decided
AI extract
G. CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
RC No.97 OF 1997
JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram )
At instance of the Revenue, below mentioned questions of law have been referred to the opinion of this Court which arise from the order of the Tribunal in WTA No.399/Hyd/1988 for the assessment year 1979-80.
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessment order of the Wealth-tax Officer passed for the assessment year 1979-80 is bad in law for assessing the beneficiary’s life interest in the jewellery under Section 21 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ?”
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the right to wear the jewellery is not an asset so as to be assessed under Section 21 (1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the hands of the Trust representing the beneficiary even after the retrospective amendment of Section 5 (1) (viii) of the Wealth-tax Act by Finance (No.2) Act, 1971 ?”
2. The primary issue involved in this case is as to the right to wear the jewellery which was asset of the Trust is an asset of the assessee who was only beneficiary of the Trust. The beneficiary interest which has been given to the assessee is benefit to the extent of wearing the jewellery on occasions which was enumerated in the Trust Deed.
3. This issue is no longer res-integra. Both the learned counsel submit that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue in view of the judgment of this Court in COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs. THE
NIZAM’S WEDDING GIFTS TRUST reported in (1998 232 ITR 861). A perusal of the said judgment would show that Division Bench while disposing of the case had followed earlier decision of this Court in (1995) 216 ITR 232 (AP).
4. In the light of the same, the questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The reference case is disposed of accordingly. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this reference case shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J
Dated: 21-01-2014 NRG
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH
&
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM
RC No.97 OF 1997
( per CKR,J )
Dated: 21-01-2014
NRG
G. CHANDRAIAH
CHALLA KODANDA RAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court