High Court Karnataka High Court

The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Sri M Ramachandran on 25 November, 2010

Karnataka High Court
The Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Sri M Ramachandran on 25 November, 2010
Author: Manjula Chellur Kumar
QJTHEEflGH%%3URTCfl*KARNATAKASTBANGALQRE

DAT.E3f> THIS THE 25TH my 01:' NOVEMBER 

PRESENT

TE-{E3 ;~{0N*B1.z«: MRS. g'USTiCE MANJULA  % "  _  

AND

THE HON'BLE3 MR. JUSTECZE A£>2Ax%:i:~éi:) :<z;:»rA}§;g" 

WTA N0¢4f§j;_:3.DO5"'~.. "

BETWEEN:

1.

‘}”‘}-{E CCBMMISSIONER ‘C::«*.x3;*E;AL*:fI«:VV’i*;s}<,
mG, G X ;

QUEENS RQAED, % . _
BANGALC¥RE}p”V

2. THE’; DE?-‘EIT’,€fCOMZvHSSiOZ\EER
mN,
4 1′-3;’. .30,” M.N,KRISHNA mo ROAD,
:{3AsAw;NAeUI:>1,

AA _ BANTf.m,oRE:.

..RES?ONfiENT

“(BY SRE. SEARTHASARATHI, ADV.)

2

THIS WTA FEES UNDER SECTIQN V0
WEALTH TAX Am, 1963., ARISING GU’? OF: OR{J’ER”‘v–.–
DATED 28.06.2004 passrm EN ‘WTA No. 13’; a%z:;:~:<3,f' A
2003 mi? THE ASSESSMENT,..YEAR_V"2G£3Q~2€¥f3'}.V, A
PRAYING THAT THIS IEiON'BLE§ comm -I'Z~{._A'£'_ ,BE?__ V

PLESEQ TO:

i} FGRMULATE T:4iE- SU5}sTA§.*?i*1}§;u
QUESTIGNS oz? LAW ” ..jS’i’fi.’£’E1:§
THEREIN,

ii} ALLOW THE %”A9PE;aLv;1.;aN:>TVjaEr _AS}i§E
THE QRDER PAs$§1::1″ ?3Y.–=._ ITAT
BANCEALORE 5EAR1NG”::~I0.,}.8 /Bzwt}/2003,
EIDATED :3*’a<.':35.'20<:;4L =: ;a:£sII:';= _C{}1\IF¥ZREv1 THE
ORDER A APPELLATE
CGMMI'SS3fj_C3NI3R 4 _ "'-.'i{3Q?-fl?§{M'I1\IG THE
ASSES;S§siEN'E?:;:,.~~OR1}E§~2 '?ASSED BY THE

1)EPU’1*Y’ QC}-§¢{f9iISSi’€?N?}R– 0F WEALTH wax,
CIRCLE-1′, B:%}?3QAL’tf.£3.RE? %

iizéfizs Wm %%Cc32aa1::~m ON mg HEARING BEFORE

“”3813 %%%}c:o:Az:{*:# ‘I’H§S”———-{“}AY, mxwm c1mLwR, .3
%_BE’3Z.IVEREf|;} Tm zvogmzvxzxze; —

JUDG3€EH’1’

” Sour: has flamed the fsiiowing substantiai

quéagiiaia sf-law on 17.07.2086:

;

‘ “Whahsr the ‘I”;:i’mmai was correct in heiéing __
that the value :33?’ pmperty held by the

618363586 at Laveile Road is not chargeabk:«~~i.€)_&’V ‘_ _ ‘ A’ V

wealth tax as the same is not urban ‘ ‘

iand with super s’m,1cture .;:,a:1r:t)t f’Gi”i1; ‘

part of the wealth as defmefiié uzadéi” S¢’c:iib’n’

2(6) (.31) of the Act?”

2. This very s11h’.§§:an:xgVg;i Q Iaw’ jwhich
arose: for czznsiderafion Came to be
answered by favour of
revenue. has taken up
the in the Speciai

Leave to Appem mg}

34._; ” L.¥3;ppai*e::1i§1V3’g, there is no stay of the (mist of’
in WTA No.25/2006. In that View of

£1115 .11ié;,:tei*’ is disposad of in terms of order

dated passed in WTA No.25/2006 by

“the question sf’ iaw in favour of Revenue.

‘–§’.}.1e”A’–;i’a’$S§<iessi13.g Qfiicer sh:-311 await the decision of the

' ""£§{§:a.f:'?3Ie Apex Court in the abové said Special Leave to

Appeal as similar issue is pending before the Ar-

before giving {i?ff€:{ft to the orders.

2'3.<:c<}rding1y', appeal is disposiéd j;

Ed/'~

$3}:

.263. .C~’G§;1:*