Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... vs Kantilal Manilal on 27 June, 1972

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat I vs Shantikumar Jagabhai on 1 October, 1973

10. We also make it clear that by virtue of the provisions of section 19(b) of the Hindu Succession Act and also as pointed out by the Gujarat High Court in Kantilal Manilal's case, after the death of Shantikumar, as a result of the will and by virtue of the release deed executed by Gautamkumar or September 11, 1961, as a regards one-third share from the business of Bipinchandra Gautamkumar, each of these two persons, Kalavati and Bhadrakumar, was entitled to one-sixth share in his or her own individual separate right and not as a member of the Hindu undivided family and they must be assessed as such in their separate individual capacity regarding this one-sixth share of the income from that business.
Gujarat High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Navnitlal Sakarlal vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Gujarat I on 2 March, 1974

In Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. Kantilal Manilal [1973] 90 ITR 289 (Guj) a Division Bench of this court had an occasion to consider a similar question in the context of the share of a deceased coparcener in the joint family properties which devolved by intestate succession and having examined the question in all its material aspects including the effect of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it arrived at the same conclusion which we have reached earlier. The question in that case was whether after the death intestate of a coparcener, who left him surviving female relatives specified in class I of the Schedule, his one-third share in an item of the joint family property, namely, jewellery, had ceased to belong to the assessee-family so that it could not be taken into account in computing the net wealth of the undivided family. The Division Bench held that on the death of the coparcener, section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, came into play and the interest of the deceased coparcener in the family properties devolved on his heirs. His interest in such properties was crystallized by ascertainment if his share as on the date of his death and such share went out of the family and the heirs of the deceased and the remaining members of the coparcenary thenceforward held the property as tenants-in-common. Each one of them had an undivided share in specified proportion in every item of the erstwhile family property.
Gujarat High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Gujarat vs Vimlabeen Vadilal Mehta on 21 October, 1983

The second question raises the point whether the income tax liability and wealth tax liability created in consequence of rectification orders passed after the relevant valuation date can be the subject of a claim to deduction in the computation of an assessee's net wealth. In appears from the record before us that while the Wealth Tax Officer completed the assessment proceeding for the assessment year 1964-65 by the assessment order dated November 23, 1964, the rectification order under s. 154 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1958-59 was made on May 13, 1966 and the rectification order under the same provision for the assessment year 1960-61 was made on January 1, 1965, and the rectification order under s. 35 of the Wealth Tax Act for the assessment year 1961-62 was made on June 10, 1965. In short, the rectification orders were made after the assessment proceeding had been completed by the Wealth Tax Officer. It would seem that the claim to deduction on account of the income tax liabilities and the wealth tax liability was made in the course of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. From the record, it appears also that the income tax liabilities, the wealth tax liability and the gift tax liabilities claimed as a deduction were quantified by assessment orders made after the Wealth Tax Officer had completed the assessment proceeding. Those assessment orders were apparently brought to the notice of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by the assessee during the hearing of Appeal filed the assessee. Shri S.C. Manchanda, learned counsel for the Revenue, urges that the judgment of Gujarat High Court in Kantilal Manilal (supra) does not conclude the question arising on this claim because the High Court was concerned with a claim to deduction on account of income tax, wealth tax and gift tax liabilities which had arisen before the Wealth Tax Officer had completed the assessment before him. Be that as it may, it is well-settled that when an appeal is filed against an assessment order before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessment case is thrown open and the appellate proceeding constitutes a continuation of the assessment proceeding. Even if the tax liabilities, of which a deduction was claimed, were created by rectification orders or by assessment orders made after the date of the wealth tax assessment order under appeal the law requires the claim to deduction being considered on the same basis as if it had been made in the original wealth tax assessment proceeding. It is true that the rectification orders and the gift tax assessment related to tax 484 liabilities which were not claimed by the assessee in the course of the original assessment proceeding before the Wealth Tax Officer, but as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner permitted the claim to be made during the hearing of the appeal, we see no reason why the asseesee should be denied consideration of his claim. And as regards the quantification of the other income tax and wealth tax liabilities effected after the Wealth Tax Officer had completed the original wealth tax assessment proceeding, the quantification of the liabilities related to claim which had already been raised before the Wealth Tax Officer in the course of the original assessment proceeding.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 9 - R S Pathak - Full Document

The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax Gujarat, ... vs Kantilal Manilal Etc. Etc on 13 March, 1985

It may be mentioned that another question was also framed in that reference, and that this reference along with several other 301 references were disposed of together by the Gujrat High Court by, its judgment in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Kantilal Manilal.1 Against that judgment corresponding special leave petitions were filed by the Revenue in this Court, but all the special leave petitions, except Special Leave Petitions (Civil) Nos 505 and 506 of 1973, arising out of Wealth Tax Reference No. 20 of 1970, were dismissed on the merits, and in respect of these two special leave petitions the grant of special leave was restricted to the consideration of the question set forth earlier.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 2 - R S Pathak - Full Document

Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, Gujarat, ... vs Vadilal Lallubhai Etc on 21 October, 1983

In the computation of his net wealth for the assessment year 1962-63, the corresponding valuation date being March 31, 1962, the assessee claimed a deduction in respect of debts which included amounts representing estimated liabilities on account of income tax and wealth tax for the assessment year 1962-63. The Wealth Tax Officer rejected the claim on the ground that as those liabilities were claimed on the basis of an estimate they could not be regarded as 487 debts owed on the valuation dates. In appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Wealth Tax the assessee claimed the deduction of a larger sum on account of income tax, wealth tax and gift tax liabilities. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner scrutinised the data placed before him and allowed part of the deductions claimed. The Revenue now appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, and contended that the deductions on account of income tax, wealth tax and gift tax liabilities for the assessment year 1962-63 should have been allowed on the basis of the respective returns filed by the assessee and not on the basis of the final assessment as the assessment orders were made after the valuation date. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the contention and dismissed the appeal. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal referred the case to the Gujarat High Court for its opinion on the question of law set forth earlier. Similar references were made in other cases, and all of them were disposed of by a common judgment of the High Court dated December 13, 1972. The High Court, relying on its earlier judgment in Commissioner of Wealth Tax v. Kantilal Manilal(1) held that the deduction admissible in computing the net wealth of the assessee must be calculated on the basis of the tax as finally determined on assessment though the assessment may have been made subsequent to the valuation date, and not on the basis of tax computed in accordance with the returns filed by the assessee.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1