Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, ... vs Trustees Of H.E.H. Nizam'S ... on 3 May, 1977
If we may say so with respect, the phrase "though it constitutes an asset" is not an accurate expression and it is used more or less an equivalent to the expression - "even if it constitutes an asset". Except the analysis of the provisions of the Trust-deed and the arguments of the Revenue, no conscious finding was reached that the right of personal use of jewellery is an asset. We are therefore of the view that nothing laid down in Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. H.E.H. Nizam's Sahebzadi Anwar Begum Trust (supra) conflicts with the view taken in RC No.67 of 1969. As regards Part I jewellery, the learned Judges took the view that the beneficial interest therein is liable to be assessed in terms of Section 21(1) because
Section 5(1)(viii) has no application as the jeweller)' was not meant for every day personal use, but it was meant for use only on ceremonial or festive occasions. Thus, both with regard to Part I and Part II jewellery, the learned Judges held that Section 21(1) was applicable, but Part II jewellery was not liable for Wealth-tax as the said jewellery was exempt from tax as per Clause viii of Section 5(1) as it then stood. The question whether the use of Part I jewellery on certain occasions is an asset chargeable to Wealth-tax did not fall for consideration at all. It is to be noted that following the decision in RC No.67 of 1969, this Court rejected the Reference application of the Department in WTC No.4 of 1991. The Special Leave Petition filed by the Department against the said order was dismissed on . We are only referring to this fact to complete the narrative though we are conscious that in the absence of a reasoned order, the dismissal of Special Leave Petition cannot by itself be construed as a binding precedent.
Section 2 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957
The Finance Act, 2018
Section 3 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs H.H. Maharani Usha Devi on 14 May, 1998
18. The learned senior Standing
Counsel also referred to the recent decision
of the Supreme Court in CIT v. H.H. Maharani Usha Devi, 231 ITR 793. In that case, the Supreme Court held that heirloom jewellery owned by the assessee was not liable to Wealth-tax for the reason that it constitutes the personal effects of the assessee held for personal use and therefore, stand excluded from the ambit of Section 2(xiv) of the Act. Thus, the question answered therein is vastly different and has no bearing on the issue involved in the present case.