SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(SC) 340

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.
Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay, Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bennet Coleman and Co. Ltd., Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 376 to 378 (NT) of 1977
Decided on 21-10-1983.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. C. Manchanda, Sr. Advocate, Mr. B. B. Ahuja and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him, for Appellant; Mrs. A. K. Verma and Mr. K. J. John, Advocates, for Respondent.
* W. T. R. No. 5 of 1967, D/- 15-7-1975,

Advocates:
A.K.VERMA, A.SUBASHINI, B.B.Ahuja, K.J.JOHN, S.C.Manchanda

Headnote:

Wealth-tax liability - Assessments - Deduction in computation of net wealth, - Amount of wealth-tax liability relating to assessment years in respect of which assessments had not been finalised on valuation date, which is to be allowed as a deduction in computation of net wealth, should be wealth-tax liability on the undisputed portion of total wealth of the assessee as finally ascertained on completion of assessments for those years after valuation date, and not wealth-tax liability estimated with reference to total net wealth declared by assessee in its return of wealth for those years – Held, Court are of opinion that High Court is right and that questions must be answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue - In view of decision of this Court in H. H. Setu Parvati Bayi v. Commr. of Wealth-tax, Kerala (1968) 69 ITR 864, first question is answered in affirmative And in view taken by Court in Commr. of Wealth Tax, Gujarat, Vadilal Lallubhai in Civil Appeals Nos. (reported in 1983 Tax LR 1654) (SC) in which judgment has been delivered today, second question must also be answered in affirmative - In result, appeals are dismissed.

JUDGMENT

PATHAK, J.:—These appeals by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay are directed against the judgment of the Bombay High Court disposing of a reference and answering the following two questions against the Revenue-:

1. "Whether wealth-tax liability for the assessment year 1959-60 was allowable as a deduction in determining the net wealth of the company for the assessment year 1959-60?

2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of wealth-tax liability relating to the assessment years in respect of which the assessments had not been finalised on the valuation date, which is to be allowed as a deduction in the computation of .the net wealth, should be the wealth-tax liability on the undisputed portion of the total wealth of the assessee as finally ascertained on completion of the assessments for those years after the valuation date, and not the wealth-tax liability estimated with reference to the total net wealth declared by the assessee in its return of wealth for those years?"

2. After hearing learned counsel, we .are of opinion that the High Court is right and that the questions must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of the decision of this Court in H. H. Setu Parvati Bayi v. Commr. of Wealth-tax, Kerala (1968) 69 ITR 864, the first question is answered in the affirmative. And in the view taken by us in Commr. of Wealth Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad Vadilal Lallubhai in Civil Appeals Nos. 1524 to 1547 of 1973 (reported in 1983 Tax LR 1654) (SC) in which judgment has been delivered today, the second question must also be answered in the affirmative.

3. In the result, the appeals are dismissed, but there is no order as to costs.

Appeals dismissed.

For Citation : AIR 1984 SC 159

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top