Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

Wealth Tax Act, 1957

70 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

M/S. LOK NATH AND COMPANY, THE MALL, SHIMLAversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, PATJALA

1995 INSC 65331 October 1995Appeal(s) allowed

M/s Lok Nath and Company filed wealth‑tax returns late for the years 1959‑60 to 1967‑68. The Wealth‑Tax Officer, after issuing a notice under s.18(1)(a), accepted the assessee’s revised returns and made an assessment, incorrectly stating it was under s.16(3) though it was in substance under s.16(1). The Commissioner, b

AMRIT BANASPATI CO. LTD.versusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, GHAZIABAD

2014 INSC 97830 June 2014Dismissed

The appellant, Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., owned a residential flat in Mumbai and declared its value under self‑assessment rules (Rule 3‑7) of Schedule III of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Assessing Officer (AO) found a large disparity between the declared value and the market value estimated by the Departmental Valuatio

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALOREversusSRI J.H. GOTLA, YADAGIRI

1985 INSC 18729 August 1985Dismissed

The assessee, an oil‑mill owner, gifted part of his machinery to his wife and three minor children and a firm was formed by his wife and another person. The firm leased the mill premises and machinery and the assessee rendered management services, receiving commission. The assessee had large losses carried forward from

VRINDAVAN GOVERDHAN LAL PITTIEversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

1986 INSC 9729 April 1986Dismissed

The petitioner, after being granted a three‑month extension to file his wealth‑tax return, filed it four months later and was levied a penalty of 0.5% of his net wealth for each month of delay under s.18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (as amended by the Finance Act, 1969). He challenged the constitutional validity o

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ORISSA, BHUBANESWARversusSMT. BINAPANI CHAKRAVARTY

1995 INSC 22228 March 1995Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined whether the term "jewellery" in Section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, as it stood before the 1971 amendment and the addition of Explanation 1, covered gold ornaments that did not contain precious or semi‑precious stones. The High Court had held that such ornaments were excluded, but

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX BOMBAY AND ANOTHERversusMRS. KASTURBAI WALCHAND & OTIIERS

1989 INSC 10028 March 1989Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a shareholder, valued her shares at break‑up value for wealth‑tax assessment, which the Wealth Tax Officer rejected. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner partially allowed her appeal, but the Commissioner appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeals. While the Tribunal appeal was pend

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPURversusM/S. J.K. COTTON MANUFACTURERS LTD.

1984 INSC 4928 February 1984Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether tax liabilities arising from settlements under the Taxation on Income (Investigation Commission) Act, 1947, which remained unpaid at the valuation dates, could be deducted as debts owed in computing net wealth under the Wealth‑Tax Act, 1957. The assessee companies argued that the unpa

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENNAIversusM/S. ALAGENDRAN FINANCE LTD.

2007 INSC 78727 July 2007Dismissed

Mis. Alagendran Finance Ltd. filed income‑tax returns for assessment years 1994‑95, 1995‑96 and 1996‑97, claiming a deduction under the Lease Equalisation Fund (LEF). The assessment orders accepted the LEF claim. In 2004 the Assessing Officer initiated reassessment proceedings for three unrelated items (share‑issue exp

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusM.V. VALLIAPPAN AND ORS.

1999 INSC 28927 July 1999Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) that was a partner in a firm, effected a partial partition on 13‑April‑1979 and the Income Tax Officer (ITO) recognised it under Section 171(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For AY 1980‑81 the HUF filed a return excluding income from the partitioned assets. The Finance Bill

GIRIDHAR G. YADALAMversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX &ANR.

2015 INSC 51824 July 2015Disposed off

The appellant, a Hindu Undivided Family co‑owner of a 30,663 sq. m. plot in Bangalore, entered into a development agreement for constructing residential flats and claimed that the land remained exempt from wealth tax while the building was under construction. The Revenue argued that under Explanation 1(b) to Section 2(

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.versusEXCHANGE CENTRE

2020 INSC 35424 April 2020Dismissed

The UAE Exchange Centre, a UAE company, obtained RBI permission under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to operate liaison offices in India for limited functions such as receiving remittance data, printing cheques/drafts and couriering them to beneficiaries. The Authority for Advance Rulings held that income from the

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAXversusM/S. SHRAVAN KUMAR SWARUP AND SONS, ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 41122 September 1994Dismissed

The assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, challenged the valuation of its residential properties for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, contending that Rule 1BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 (effective 1 April 1979) should be applied even though the assessments were made after the rule’s introduction. The Revenue

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BIHAR-II, RANCHIversusSMT. SANDHYARANI DUTIA

2001 INSC 10922 February 2001Appeal(s) allowed

A Hindu male governed by the Dayabhaga school died intestate, leaving his widow and two daughters. The widow and daughters entered into an agreement to form a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and the widow contributed her share of the inherited property to the HUF, omitting the income from her tax returns for AY 1974-75 an

INCOME TAX OFFICER, JODHPURversusPURUSHOTTAM DAS BANGUR AND ANR.

1997 INSC 5022 January 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The Income Tax Officer had completed assessments for 1969-70 and 1971-72, accepting the assessee's claim of a long‑term capital loss on the sale of shares. Later, a letter from the Deputy Director of the Directorate of Inspection, supported by documentary evidence, indicated that the fair market value of those shares w

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARAT-III, AHMEDABADversusELLIS BRIDGE GYMKHANA ETC. ETC.

1997 INSC 70421 October 1997Case Partly allowed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat sought to assess Ellis Bridge Gymkhana, an unincorporated club, for wealth tax for assessment years 1970‑71 to 1977‑78, arguing that the club fell within the term “individual” in Section 3 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The club contended that an association of persons is not an in

LATE NAWAB SIR MIR OSMAN ALI KHANversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, HYDERABAD

1986 INSC 21621 October 1986Case Partly allowed

The Nizam of Hyderabad (Sir Mir Osman Ali Khan) challenged the inclusion of certain immovable properties and an annual payment of Rs.25 lakhs in his net wealth for wealth‑tax purposes. The Supreme Court held that properties for which full consideration was received and possession handed over, even without a registered

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX GUJARAT, AHMEDABADversusVADILAL LALLUBHAI ETC.

1983 INSC 15721 October 1983Dismissed

The assessee, while computing his net wealth for the assessment year 1962-63, claimed deductions for debts representing estimated liabilities of income tax, wealth tax and gift tax. The Wealth Tax Officer rejected the claim, stating that estimated liabilities could not be treated as debts on the valuation date. The App

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, MADRASversusK. S. N. BHATT

1983 INSC 15821 October 1983Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, K.S.N. Bhatt, claimed deductions in his wealth‑tax returns for income‑tax, wealth‑tax and gift‑tax liabilities, arguing that these amounts were debts owed on the valuation dates for the assessment years 1964‑65 to 1967‑68. The Wealth Tax Officer allowed only part of the deductions; the Appellate Assistant

SRI S.N. WADIYAR (DEAD) THROUGH LRversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KARNATAKA

2015 INSC 68221 September 2015Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, the legal representative of the late S.N. Wadiyar, challenged the valuation of vacant land appurtenant to Bangalore Palace for wealth tax purposes. The Wealth Tax Officer had valued the land at market rates, ignoring the restrictions imposed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1962, which lim

DR. KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF JAMMU & KASHMIR & ANR.

1985 INSC 25620 December 1985Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. Karan Singh claimed ownership of six boxes of jewellery and valuable articles stored in the Srinagar Toshakhana, seeking exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Wealth Tax Act as heirlooms. The High Court refused his application for a physical inspection of the items, holding that no useful purpose would be served

UNION OF INDIAversusPRINCE MUFFAKAM JAH AND ORS.

1994 INSC 47120 October 1994Dismissed

The dispute concerned jewellery belonging to two trusts created by the Nizam of Hyderabad. An arbitration award directed the Union of India to pay Rs 180 crore to purchase the items, which was challenged by the Union and the trustees under Sections 15 and 16 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Public‑spirited intervenors fil

R.K. GARG ETC. ETC.versusUNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.

1981 INSC 18120 October 1981Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined the constitutionality of the Special Bearer Bonds (Immunities and Exemptions) Ordinance, 1981 and the subsequent Act, which granted anonymity and tax exemptions to holders of special bearer bonds intended to canalise black money. The petitioners argued that the President lacked authority unde

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, PATNAversusRAGHUBIR NARAIN SINGH

1984 INSC 3920 February 1984Dismissed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Patna, appealed against the assessment of Raghubir Narain Singh's net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The issues concerned how to value assets and debts, including pending decree amounts and agricultural income‑tax liabilities, for computing net wealth under Section 7 and Section 

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, BIHAR, PATNAversusMAHARAJA KUMAR KAMAL SINGH

1984 INSC 3820 February 1984Dismissed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Bihar appealed against the Patna High Court’s decision that Maharaja Kumar Kamal Singh’s right to receive compensation under the Bihar Land Reforms Act should be valued at nil because of arrears of agricultural income‑tax. The central issue was whether such tax arrears could be deducted

J.M. BHATIA, APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ORS.versusJ.M. SHAH

1985 INSC 19919 September 1985Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent was assessed for wealth tax on Rs.6,07,690 including jewellery worth Rs.4,15,942 for AY 1969-70. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) excluded the jewellery under s.5(1)(viii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and no appeal was filed, rendering the order final in the ordinary sense. After the Finance (N

DILIP N. SHROFFversusJOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MUMBAI AND ANR.

2007 INSC 64718 May 2007Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, a Hindu Undivided Family, reported a long‑term capital loss on the sale of its one‑fourth share in a property and relied on a valuation report prepared by a registered valuer. The Assessing Officer, after adopting a higher valuation by the District Valuation Officer, levied a penalty under Section 271(1)

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAXversusSMT. HASHMATUNNISA BEGUM

1989 INSC 1417 January 1989Disposed off

The case concerned gifts of immovable property made by a deceased individual to his wives in 1962, which were chargeable to gift‑tax. The assessee claimed that, under the proviso to section 4(1)(a) of the Wealth‑Tax Act, 1957, such gifts should be exempt from wealth‑tax assessment for all assessment years commencing af

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KANPUR ETC. ETC.versusCHANDER SEN ETC.

1986 INSC 14316 July 1986Dismissed

Rangi Lal and his son Chander Sen formed a Hindu undivided family (HUF) that later underwent a partial partition, after which Rangi Lal died leaving a credit balance in the firm’s books. Chander Sen, who had his own HUF with his sons, claimed that the balance and its interest were his individual inheritance and exclude

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, RAJKOTversusESTATE OF LATE HMM VIKRAMSINHJI OF GONDAL

2014 INSC 27716 April 2014Dismissed

The late Maharaja Vikramsinhji of Gondal created several foreign trusts in the United States and the United Kingdom. After his death, the Income Tax and Wealth Tax authorities assessed tax on the income of the UK trusts, arguing that they were specific trusts whose income accrued to the settlor and later to his son. Th

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, HYDERABADversusTRUSTEES OF HEH

2003 INSC 23216 April 2003Dismissed

The beneficiaries of the H.E.H. Nizam Jewellery Trust valued their interest in the trust's jewellery based on a valuer's report. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax challenged this valuation, arguing that the estate duty payable on the deemed death of the life tenant had been incorrectly deducted, among other objections. Th

MOHIT KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

2025 INSC 70414 May 2025Disposed off

The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (UPPRPB) issued a 2021 notification for sub‑inspector recruitment requiring OBC candidates to submit a caste certificate in a specific state‑prescribed format. Mohit Kumar and Kiran Prajapati, both OBC candidates, submitted certificates in the Central Government

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-IIversusM/S BPL LIMITED

2022 INSC 107713 October 2022Dismissed

The Deputy Commissioner of Gift Tax appealed against the valuation of shares gifted by M/s BPL Limited to M/s Celestial Finance Ltd. The shares, although listed, were promoter quota shares subject to a lock‑in period, raising the question of whether they were "quoted" for valuation purposes. The Supreme Court held that

BIMAL KISHORE PALIWAL & ORSversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

2017 INSC 104113 October 2017Dismissed

The appellants, partners in the firm G.D. & Sons, owned a cinema building (Alpana Cinema) that was assessed for wealth tax. The assessing officer referred the valuation to a Departmental Valuer under Section 16A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 and adopted the land‑and‑building (open‑market) method. The ITAT held that the i

SRI MARTHANDA VARMA (D) THR. LRS. & ANR.versusSTATE OF KERALA & ORS.

2020 INSC 45113 July 2020Disposed off

The case concerns the management of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple in Thiruvananthapuram, which has been historically managed by the Travancore royal family. After the integration of princely states, a Covenant in 1949 and the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 preserved the Ruler's control over the

DR. KARAN SINGHversusSTATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND ANR.

2004 INSC 26613 April 2004Dismissed

Dr. Karan Singh, son of the former Maharaja of Jammu & Kashmir, claimed that 563 heirloom articles in the state Toshakhana were his private property. After a 1983 representation to the Ministry of Home Affairs was rejected, he filed a writ petition which was partially allowed by the High Court, declaring 42 items his.

SMT. HARBANS KAURversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, JULLUNDUR

1977 INSC 1013 January 1977Dismissed

The appellants were liable to penalty under Section 18(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for failing to file wealth‑tax returns for assessment years 1970‑71 to 1975‑76. After the amendment inserting Section 18‑B, they filed the returns and sought a full waiver of the penalty. The Commissioner, satisfied that the condition

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAXversusPRINCE MUFFAKHAM JAH BAHADUR CHAMLIJAN

2000 INSC 58412 December 2000Appeal(s) allowed

Prince Muffakham Jah, a beneficiary of a trust created by the late Nizam, was entitled to reside rent‑free for life in a house built by the trustees. He omitted the value of this life interest from his wealth‑tax returns for assessment years 1969‑70 to 1977‑78. The Wealth‑Tax Officer added the value using Rule 1B of th

R.K. DEOversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, ORISSA.

1992 INSC 15712 May 1992Dismissed

R.K. Deo, the former Raja of Jeypore, claimed a deduction of Rs 6,69,766, the income‑tax liability on his forest income, while computing his net wealth under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1962‑63 to 1965‑66. The liability had been affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1958, a fresh demand notice was issu

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARATversusLOV. S. KINARIWALA

2002 INSC 53211 December 2002Dismissed

The respondent, a beneficiary of a trust, received income from a partnership firm which was assigned to the trust and later distributed. The beneficiaries, including the respondent, assigned their interests to a Body of Individuals (B.O.I.) and claimed that the assets should be valued as belonging to the B.O.I. The Ass

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LUCKNOWversusP. K. BANERJEE (DEAD) BY LRS.

1980 INSC 1769 September 1980Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, challenged the assessee P. K. Banerjee's claim that his right to receive the net income of a family trust fund was an annuity exempt under section 2(e)(iv) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The trust, created by Banerjee's father in 1937 and modified in 1950, paid the net income of

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ALLAHABADversusARVIND NAROTTAM (INDL.)

1988 INSC 2119 August 1988Dismissed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax assessed the wealth tax on the entire value of assets held in three discretionary trusts created for the benefit of Arvind Narottam, invoking s.21(2) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The trusts stipulated only a minimum annual payment to the beneficiary, with any surplus income and the corpus

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUJARAT, AHMEDABADversusSMT. KAMALTNI KHATAU

1994 INSC 1989 May 1994

The Supreme Court examined whether the tax authorities could choose to assess tax on either the trustees or the beneficiaries of a discretionary trust when the trust's income was distributed and actually received by the beneficiaries during the accounting year. The respondent, a beneficiary of six discretionary trusts,

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, BHOPALversusABDUL HUSSAIN MULLA MUHAMMAD ALI (DEAD) BY L.RS.

1988 INSC 1579 May 1988Appeal(s) allowed

The case concerned a Rs.4,00,000 loan advanced by the assessee to his partner in a flour and oil mill partnership, which the assessee claimed was a 'Quaraza-e-Hasana'—an interest‑free goodwill loan under Muslim law—and therefore should be excluded from his wealth for tax purposes. The Wealth‑Tax Officer and the Appella

AV. REDDY TRUST AND ORS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

1999 INSC 4698 October 1999Appeal(s) allowed

A.V. Reddy created four trusts for his grandchildren and daughter, appointing himself as sole trustee. The trusts stipulated that the corpus would be transferred to beneficiaries only after they attained a specified age, making their interests contingent and indeterminate at the valuation dates. The Wealth Tax Officer

M/S BANGALORE CLUBversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX & ANR.

2020 INSC 5368 September 2020Appeal(s) allowed

The Bangalore Club, a social club, challenged an assessment that it was liable to wealth tax under Section 21AA of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The Assessing Officer and the CIT (Appeals) held the club liable, but the Appellate Tribunal set aside those orders. The Supreme Court examined the meaning of "association of pers

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMRITSARversusTATTAN TRUST AMRITSAR ETC.

1997 INSC 5388 July 1997Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, a charitable trust created in 1942, amended its deed in 1971 to require that surplus funds be invested in a company in which the trustees had a substantial interest. It claimed exemption of the interest earned on those investments under Section 11 of the Income Tax Act, relying on the first proviso to Sec

SMT. AMIYHA BALA PAULversusCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHILLONG

2003 INSC 3047 July 2003Appeal(s) allowed

Sm. Amiya Bala Paul constructed a house and disclosed investment amounts in the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. The Assessing Officer rejected the second disclosure and, invoking Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, referred the valuation of the house's construction cost to a Valuation Officer appointed under the W

AHMED IBRAHIM SAHIGRA DHORAJIversusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, GUJARAT

1981 INSC 867 April 1981Appeal(s) allowed

The assessee, Ahmed Ibrahim Sahigra Dhoraji, possessed concealed income of Rs 7 lakhs earned between 1957‑58 and 1964‑65. He made a voluntary disclosure under Section 68 of the Finance Act 1965 and paid tax at the prescribed rate. He claimed that the tax paid could be deducted as a "debt owed" under Section 2(m) of the

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, AMRITSARversusSURESH SETH

1981 INSC 877 April 1981Dismissed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Amritsar appealed against a High Court order that had ruled in favour of Suresh Seth, who had filed his wealth‑tax returns for 1964‑65 and 1965‑66 years several years late. The department had levied penalties under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act, applying different rates for peri

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, CALCUTTAversusSMT. ANJAMLI KHAN

1990 INSC 3406 November 1990Appeal(s) allowed

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax assessed wealth tax on Smt. Anjamli Khan for three assessment years, estimating compensation payable for agricultural lands acquired by the State under the West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953. Khan contended that the right to receive such compensation was not an "asset" under Sectio

MAHARAJA AMRINDER SINGHversusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

2017 INSC 8525 September 2017Appeal(s) allowed

Maharaja Amrinder Singh, a wealth‑tax assessee, challenged the High Court’s order that set aside the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision in his favour and restored a penalty assessment for the years 1981‑84. The revenue had appealed to the High Court under Section 27‑A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, which the Suprem

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND ORS. ETC.versusDIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT AND ORS. ETC.

2005 INSC 2595 May 2005

The Supreme Court examined whether a company, being a juristic person, can be prosecuted under Section 56 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 when the statute mandates both imprisonment and fine. The appellants argued that because a company cannot be imprisoned, the provision could not apply to them. The Court

KHORSHED SHAPOOR CHENAI ETC.versusASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY

1979 INSC 2564 December 1979Appeal(s) allowed

The Supreme Court examined two appeals challenging notices issued by the Assistant Controller of Estate Duty under sections 59(a) and 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, which sought to reopen and rectify estate duty assessments of lands acquired by the government. The Court held that the right to receive compensation for

TATAVARTHI RAJAH AND ANR.versusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, HYDERABAD

1997 INSC 3684 April 1997Dismissed

The appellants, a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) of four members, filed a suit for partition in 1954, with a final decree in 1961. The Wealth Tax Officer assessed the family for assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61, treating it as an undivided family of four members because no physical partition by metes and bou

SH. MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN AND 9RS.versusTHE COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, NEW DELHI

1997 INSC 2274 March 1997

Sh. Mohammad Ali Khan owned the Khas Bagh Palace, which the Central Government declared as his official residence under the Merged States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1949. He claimed exemption from wealth tax for the entire palace under Section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, arguing that the provision covered

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAXversusDR. KARAN SINGH AND OTHERS ETC.

1993 INSC 394 February 1993Appeal(s) allowed

The respondents filed writ petitions challenging the extension of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to the State of Jammu & Kashmir, arguing that the Act falls under Union List Entry 86, which does not apply to the State under Article 370, and that it should be placed under Entry 97, rendering the extension ultra vires. The Hig

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LUCKNOWversusRAJA VISHWANATH PRATAP SINGH

1996 INSC 4813 April 1996Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, challenged the High Court's order that allowed a deduction of a Rs 30 lakh decree amount as a debt owed by the assessee, Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh, under the Wealth Tax Act. The decree arose from his father's debts under the U.P. Encumbered Estates Act; the father's estate

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KANPURversusDR. R.S. GUPTA

1987 INSC 303 February 1987Appeal(s) allowed

Dr. R.S. Gupta claimed that two sums (Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.67,560½) were valid gifts to his sons and grandsons, effected by instructing a non‑banking firm (Messrs Tika Ram & Sons) to debit his account and credit the donees' accounts. The firm had only Rs.4,000 cash and no overdraft facility. The Revenue argued that witho

F.S. GANDHI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, ALLAHABAD

1990 INSC 1732 May 1990Appeal(s) allowed

F.S. Gandhi, the deceased, owned several lease‑hold properties in Allahabad. The leases expired in 1958 and 1963 and the Government of Uttar Pradesh served notices to vacate, but the assessee continued to occupy the premises under a month‑to‑month tenancy and collected rent. The Wealth Tax Officer, the Appellate Assist

H.H. LAKSHMI BAI AND ANR. ETC. ETC.versusCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ETC. ETC.

1994 INSC 412 February 1994Dismissed

The appellants, H.H. Lakshmi Bai and others, invested Rs.70,000 in National Defence Certificates and Defence Deposit Certificates, which fall under clause (xv) of section 5(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. They already enjoyed the general exemption of Rs.150,000 under section 5(1) and claimed an additional exemption und

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RAJKOTversusSHATRUSAILYA DIGVIJAYSINGH JADEJA

2005 INSC 3961 September 2005Dismissed

The respondent‑assessee, Shatrusail Ya Digvijay Singh Jadeja, had tax assessments for years 1984‑85 to 1991‑92 under the Income Tax Act and the Wealth Tax Act, which were appealed but dismissed in 1992‑93 for failure to pre‑deposit tax. After the Finance (No.2) Act, 1998 introduced the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme (effect

PETROLEUM & NATURAL GAS REGULATORY BOARDversusINDRAPRASTHA GAS LIMITED & ORS.

2015 INSC 4591 July 2015Dismissed

The Supreme Court examined whether the Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board (PNGRB) could, under the PNGRB Act, 2008, fix the maximum retail price of gas and determine network tariff and compression charges for a city or local natural gas distribution network owned by Indraprastha Gas Ltd. The Court held that Sec

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search