Cwt Vs. Santosh Chand

Cwt vs Santosh Chand

Type Court Judgment Court Rajasthan Decided Jul 01, 2002

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/772587

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/772587
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Decided On: Jul 01, 2002
Case Number: D.B. WT Ref. No. 54 of 1988 1 July 2002
Subject: Direct Taxation

Case Summary

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

Counsels: Anuroop Singhi, for the Revenue. In the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench Y.R. Meena & Shashi Kant Sharma, JJ. -

Key legal issue: Direct Taxation

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cwt

Advocate Anuroop Singhi, <i>for the Revenue.</i>

Respondent

Santosh Chand

Legal References

Reported In: [2003]131TAXMAN265(Raj)

Excerpt

counsels: anuroop singhi, for the revenue. in the high court of rajasthan, jaipur bench y.r. meena & shashi kant sharma, jj. - on an application under section 27(3) of the wealth tax act, 1957, the tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :'whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the appellate assistant commissioner that in the case of residential properties rule 1bb being procedural, would apply to assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1-4-1979?'2. at the out set, learned counsel for the revenue mr. singhi fairly admits that now the issue is covered by the decision of apex court in the case of cwt v. sharvan kumar swarup & sons : 1995ecr425(sc) , wherein their lordships have taken the view that rule 1bb has the application. rule 1bb is procedural, therefore, it has a retrospective effect.3. considering the submissions of the learned counsel, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the tribunal.4. in the result, we answer the question in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.5. reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.

Full Judgment

On an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the Tribunal has referred the following question for our opinion :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner that in the case of residential properties rule 1BB being procedural, would apply to assessment years 1972-73 to 1977-78, even prior to 1-4-1979?'

2. At the out set, learned counsel for the revenue Mr. Singhi fairly admits that now the issue is covered by the decision of Apex Court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup & Sons : 1995ECR425(SC) , wherein their Lordships have taken the view that rule 1BB has the application. Rule 1BB is procedural, therefore, it has a retrospective effect.

3. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel, we find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal.

4. In the result, we answer the question in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.

5. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 2002 Same Parties Cwt vs Santosh Chand Same Subject Direct Taxation

Direct Taxation