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

2002 Supreme(Raj) 282

A.C.GOYAL, Y.R.MEENA
Commissioner of Wealth Tax – Appellant
Versus
Vallabh Das – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.K. Singhi, for the Appellant
J.K. Ranka, for the Respondents

Judgment

1. On an application filed under Section 27(1) of the WT Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court:

1. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the market value of the property ‘Himanshu Bhawan’ should be determined by applying a multiple of 10 to the net annual value?“

2. “Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in allowing a deduction of Rs. 50,000 from the fair market value of ‘Himanshu Bhawan’ on account of declaration made by the assessee under Section 3(1) nw Section 13 of the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976?“

2. Theassessee is individual. The relevant assessment years are 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75, The assessee inter alia owns property known as ‘Himanshu Bhawan’, Jaipur. The WTO has adopted the value of this property on the basis of report of the Valuation Officer. The WTO has determined the value, of this property on rent capitalisation method. While doing so, the WTO has applied the multiplier of 13.333 to the net annual value and that has been disputed.

3. In ap











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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top