Gujarat High Court High Court

I.T.O vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011

Gujarat High Court
I.T.O vs Unknown on 31 March, 2011
Author: Harsha Devani,&Nbsp;Ms.Justice B.M.Trivedi,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

TAXAP/44/2000	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

TAX
APPEAL No. 44 of 2000 
=========================================


 

I.T.O.
- Appellant(s)
 

Versus
 

LT.COL.
ASHOKRAJE GAEKWAD(HUF) - Opponent(s)
 

=========================================
 
Appearance : 
MR
KM PARIKH for
Appellant(s) : 1, 
MR JP SHAH for Opponent(s) :
1, 
=========================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MS.JUSTICE BELA TRIVEDI
		
	

 

 


 

Date
: 31/03/2011  
ORAL ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1. By
this appeal under section 27A of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the
appellant-revenue has challenged order dated 18.11.1999 made by
the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in
W.T.A. No. 1310/Ahd/1995 for assessment year 1988-89.

2. While
admitting the appeal, this Court had vide order dated 18.10.2000
formulated the following substantial question of law :

“Whether,
on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the
Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee being assessed under
the status of HUF is entitled to the benefit of section 7(4) of the
Act in respect of property known as “Dhairya Prasad”?”

3. At
the outset, Mr. K.M. Parikh, learned standing counsel for the
appellant has very fairly drawn the attention of the Court to the
judgment and order dated 17.07.2006 passed by a Division Bench of
this Court in the assessee’s own case in Wealth Tax Reference No. 93
of 1995 to submit that the controversy involved in the present case
stands concluded against the revenue by the said decision. In the
circumstances, it is not necessary to set out the facts and
contentions in detail.

4. For
the reasons stated in the judgment and order dated 17.07.2006 passed
by this Court in the assessee’s own case in Wealth Tax Reference No.
93 of 1995, the question is answered in the affirmative, that is, in
favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The appeal is
accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

[Harsha
Devani, J.]

[Bela
Trivedi, J.]

mrpandya

   

Top