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

D.S.MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, D.V.JUNNARKAR
FIRST WEALTH-TAX OFFICER – Appellant
Versus
SMT. P. H. HARILELA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.N. Nambiar,D.M. Harish

ORDER

Per Shri DY. Junnarkar, Accountant Member - The revenue has filed these appeals against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the case did not fall in the ambit of Explanation 4 to section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ('the Act') and, consequently, in cancelling the penalties levied by the WTO under section 18(1)(c) for each of the six years under consideration.

2. During the years under consideration, the assessee's wealth consisted of one-fourth share in an immovable property known as Harilela House and also a Flat No. 51A in Anita Apartments, Mount Pleasant Road, Bombay. The assessee disclosed the value of the one-fourth interest in the Harilela House at Rs. 1,54,528 for each of the six years. The WTO, however, valued this one-fourth interest at Rs. 4,12,685 for the first two years, at Rs. 4,18,445 for the next three years and at Rs. 4,14,645 for the last year under consideration. He valued this property as per the depart-mental Valuation Officer's report under section 16A of the Act. Likewise, in respect of the flat in the Anita Apartments, the assessee disclosed the value of the flat at Rs. 60,000 for each of the years whereas the WTO valued this f

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