Commissioner of Wealth-tax Vs. Sita Ram Arvind Kumar

Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs Sita Ram Arvind Kumar

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Aug 20, 1990

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/686707

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/686707
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: B.N. Kirpal and; S. Duggal, JJ.
Decided On: Aug 20, 1990
Case Number: Wealth-tax Case No. 96 of 1989
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation
Acts & sections: Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 7(4) and 27(1); Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 - Schedule III - Rule 2(9)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Wealth-tax

Advocate D.K. Jain and; R.N. Verma, Advs

Respondent

Sita Ram Arvind Kumar

Advocate R. Santanam and ; Sanat Kumar, Advs.

Legal References

Acts: Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 7(4) and 27(1); Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 - Schedule III - Rule 2(9)
Reported In: [1991]188ITR527(Delhi)

Excerpt

- 1. as regards question no. 1, in view of our decision in cwt v. sohan lal sita ram : [1990]184itr337(delhi) , we dispose of this petition by consigning to the record and give liberty to the petitioner to apply for its revival if and when the value of the house in question in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, which is the base year in view of section 7(4) of the wealth-tax act, is revised. 2. as regards question no. 2, the same pertains to the valuation of the shares which had been quoted on the bombay stock exchange. the assessment file of the assessed having been transferred to delhi, the commissioner of wealth-tax (appeals) took note of the central board of direct taxes circular and following the same came to the conclusion that as the distance between bombay and delhi was less than the distance between calcutta and delhi, thereforee, the value quoted at the bombay stock exchange should be adopted. this plea was accepted by the tribunal also. in our opinion, the question as to what was the proper rate to be applied in valuing the shares is a pure question of fact, on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Full Judgment

1. As regards question No. 1, in view of our decision in CWT v. Sohan Lal Sita Ram : [1990]184ITR337(Delhi) , we dispose of this petition by consigning to the record and give liberty to the petitioner to apply for its revival if and when the value of the house in question in respect of the assessment year 1971-72, which is the base year in view of section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, is revised.

2. As regards question No. 2, the same pertains to the valuation of the shares which had been quoted on the Bombay Stock Exchange. The assessment file of the assessed having been transferred to Delhi, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) took note of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular and following the same came to the conclusion that as the distance between Bombay and Delhi was less than the distance between Calcutta and Delhi, thereforee, the value quoted at the Bombay Stock Exchange should be adopted. This plea was accepted by the Tribunal also. In our opinion, the question as to what was the proper rate to be applied in valuing the shares is a pure question of fact, on the facts and circumstances of the present case.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1990 Same Parties Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs Sita Ram Arvind Kumar Same Subject Direct Taxation Same Judge B.N. Kirpal and; S. Duggal, JJ. Acts & Sections Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - Sections 7(4) and 27(1); Wealth Tax Ru...

Direct Taxation