Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. A.R. Rajagopalan - Court Judgment |
| Direct Taxation |
| Chennai High Court |
| Feb-15-2001 |
| Tax Case Nos. 474 to 477 of 1991 (Reference Nos. 183 to 186 of 1991) |
| R. Jayasimha Babu and ;K. Gnanaprakasam, JJ. |
| [2001]252ITR527(Mad) |
| Wealth-tax Act, 1957 |
| Commissioner of Income-tax |
| A.R. Rajagopalan |
| T. Ravikumar, Adv. |
| P.P.S. Janarthana Raja, Adv. |
- r. jayasimha babu, j.1. the revenue fairly stated that an identical question brought before us concerning the assessment of the co-owner of the lands was answered against the revenue, and in favour of the assessee in t. c. no. 1087 of 1988 by the judgment dated december 4, 2000 (cwt v. a.r. krishnamurthy : [2001]249itr239(mad) ). for the reasons stated in that order, the question referred to us regarding the correctness of the tribunal's order which held that the wealth-tax officer was not justified in including an additional compensation awarded by the court in the wealth tax assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1976-77 and 1977-78 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. during those years, the amount that had been drawn by the assessee was subject to a bank guarantee and was subject to the outcome of the appeals pending in the courts.
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The Revenue fairly stated that an identical question brought before us concerning the assessment of the co-owner of the lands was answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee in T. C. No. 1087 of 1988 by the judgment dated December 4, 2000 (CWT v. A.R. Krishnamurthy : [2001]249ITR239(Mad) ). For the reasons stated in that order, the question referred to us regarding the correctness of the Tribunal's order which held that the Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in including an additional compensation awarded by the court in the wealth tax assessment years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1976-77 and 1977-78 is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. During those years, the amount that had been drawn by the assessee was subject to a bank guarantee and was subject to the outcome of the appeals pending in the courts.