Disposed

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Heh the Nizams Jewellery Trust and 2 Others

Telangana HC23 Nov 2022RC/3/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana closed Reference Case No. 3 of 2005 without deciding the legal questions framed. The Court held the matter academic as the tax effect fell below the monetary limit specified in Ministry Circular No.3 of 2018 and amended Circular No.17 of 2019.

What did the court decide?

Reference Case closed as academic; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs Heh the Nizams Jewellery Trust… — Income Tax | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶5

RC NO: 3 OF 2005

¶6

Between:

¶7

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Hyderabad.

¶8

... Applicant

¶9

AND

¶10

'l . HEH The Nizam's Jewellery Trust , Rep. by Nb. Moazam Jah Fund

¶11

HEH the Nizam's Jewellery Trust, Rep. by Nb. Basalath Jah Fund

¶12

3, llEH the Nizam'sJewellery Trust, Rep- by Sb- Sahzadi Begum Fund

¶13

...Respondents

¶14

Case referred to the High Court by the lncome -Tax Appeltate Tribunal Hyderabad Bench^"B" Hyderabad, under Section 256 (1) aM 256 (2) of the lndian lncome Tax Act, 196'l in R. A. Nos. 345 & 346 / HYd/^'1993 ( in WTA Nos. 477 & 478 I Hyd / 92 Asst. Year 1978 -79 & 79 - 80) on its file for decision on the following question of law viz.,

¶15

i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tdbunal was correct in holding that for the purpose of valuation of the Jewellery under Section 7 (1) of the Wealth - tax Act, the alleged uncertainties, hazards, risks of litigation, burden of cumulative tax liability etc., should be considered as the factors which would go to reduce the estimated market value?

¶16

ii) Whether , on the facts and in the circumstarrces of the case, the Tribunal was^justified in ignoring the position that the concept of a national open

¶17

market would preclude the assumption of any restrictions of the sale of the asset in that national open market?

¶18

iii) Whether , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the exemption under Section 5 (1) (xii) of the WT Act in respects of 7 iterms of^jewellery claimed to represent art treasures ?

¶19

iv) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal; was correct in law in holding that under Section 16A of the Wealth-Tax act, the WTO would be entitled to make further adjustments to the valuation as determined by the Valuation Officer?

¶20

v) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was^justified in confirming the decision of the CWT (A) - I fixing the value of the fund at 50% of the value fixed by the departmental valuer Sri Jayant N. Chowlera, had himself admitted before the umpire in the arbitration proceedings pending before the latter that he did not consider certain issqes involved, rylrile delermilinq the v{ye 9f the jewellery of the principal fund of the jewellery trust ?

¶21

The reference coming on for hearing upon perusing the lefter of reference of the lncome tax Appellate Tribunal , Hyderabad dated 31-05-2005 and upon hearing the arguments of Sri B. Narasimha Sharma, Standing Counsel for lncome Tax Department appearing on behalf of the applicant .The Court made the following Order:

¶22

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶25

AND

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶27

RC. No 3 of 2OO5

¶28

ORDER: lper ,FIo n'ble Sri Justice T.Vinod Kumar)

¶29

Sri B.Narasimha Sharma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Income Tax appearing on behalf of the applicalt submits that since the tax elfect as per the Appellate Authority order under Ex.Bl, is below tl.e monetarSz limit specified in the Circular No.3 of 2O18, dt.l1.O7.2O18 as amended by Circular No.17 of 2019, dt.O8.O8.2019, there is no need for this Court to answer the present reference made by the Tribunal as the same would be purely academic.

¶30

In view of the same, this RC is closed. No order as to costs.

¶31

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶32

closed in the light of this {inal order.

¶33

Sd/.B.S.CHIRANJEEVI / JOINT REGISTRAR

¶34

¶35

/ffRUE^COPY// SECTION^OFFICER

¶36

The lncome -Tax^{Appellate TribunalHyderabadBench 'B"} Hyderabad,

¶37

One CC^{to SRl. B NARASIMHA SARMA'SC for lncome Tax Department} loPUCl

¶38

Two^{CD CoPies}

HIGH COURT

DATED:2311112022

ORDER

ltiE S14 14:
I
t o
Z
; 2B JAilM
,o
.1r

¶44

RC.No.3 of 2005

¶45

Closing the Referred Case

¶46

5"cd lc'lclil'zr

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Heh the Nizams Jewellery Trust and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Heh the Nizams Jewellery Trust and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Radha Bai, Hyderabad Vs Dy. C.T.O. Hyderabad and Another

M/s. Naresh Industries Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Gayatri Rice Industries Vs State of Telangana

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs K. Visweswara Reddy

Grasimindustries Limited. Vs Assistant Commissioner (Ct)Ltu)

Rsv Rice Industries and 26 Others Vs State of Telangana and 5 others