Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Jagdev Inder Singh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberWealth-tax Reference Nos. 35 and 36 of 1981
Judge
Reported in[1991]192ITR557(P& H)
ActsWealth Tax Act, 1957 - Schedule - Rule 1
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth-tax
RespondentJagdev Inder Singh
Appellant Advocate Ajay Mittal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate A.L. Bahal, Adv.
Excerpt:
.....judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution. - 1. the question posed for our determination is :whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income-tax appellate tribunal is right in law in holding that the agricultural lands of the assessee were covered by the expression 'business premises' as defined in the schedule, part i, paragraph b, rule 1(i), of the wealth-tax act, 1957, and thus exempt from the charge of additional wealth-tax ?' 2. the matter raised here is clearly covered by the decisions of this court in cwt v......income-tax appellate tribunal is right in law in holding that the agricultural lands of the assessee were covered by the expression 'business premises' as defined in the schedule, part i, paragraph b, rule 1(i), of the wealth-tax act, 1957, and thus exempt from the charge of additional wealth-tax ?'2. the matter raised here is clearly covered by the decisions of this court in cwt v. hari singh and cwt v. smt. devinder kaur . it may be mentioned that the special leave petition filed against the decision in smt. devinder kaur's case has also since been dismissed by the supreme court (see [1983] 144 itr 12). the other judgment where a similar view has been taken is that of the high court of kerala in cwt v. mrs. sara varghese : [1988]170itr436(ker) .3. the reference is thus answered in the.....
Judgment:

S.S. Sodhi, J.

1. The question posed for our determination is :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the agricultural lands of the assessee were covered by the expression 'business premises' as defined in the Schedule, Part I, Paragraph B, Rule 1(i), of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and thus exempt from the charge of additional wealth-tax ?'

2. The matter raised here is clearly covered by the decisions of this court in CWT v. Hari Singh and CWT v. Smt. Devinder Kaur . It may be mentioned that the special leave petition filed against the decision in Smt. Devinder Kaur's case has also since been dismissed by the Supreme Court (see [1983] 144 ITR 12). The other judgment where a similar view has been taken is that of the High Court of Kerala in CWT v. Mrs. Sara Varghese : [1988]170ITR436(Ker) .

3. The reference is thus answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //