Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1970/2008 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1970 of 2008
=========================================
RAJAL
INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. - Appellant(s)
Versus
THE
WELTH TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (3) - Opponent(s)
=========================================
Appearance :
MR.
S.N.SOPARKAR, SR. COUNSEL with MRS SWATI
SOPARKAR for Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date
: 11/01/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ)
The
Appellant Assessee has filed this Tax Appeal under Section 27A of
the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for assessment year 1999-2000, proposing to
formulate the following substantial question of law for
determination and consideration of this Court:
(i) Whether
in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was
right in law in holding that an encumbrance created is the same as
restrictive covenant?
(ii) Whether
in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was
right in law in holding that the valuation of the assets under the
Wealth-Tax Act is to be determined by ignoring the restrictive
covenants as per the amendment in Rule 21 of Schedule III of the
Act?
(iii) Whether
in the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was
right in law in ignoring the fact that the only method of evaluating
an encumbered asset is to consider the valuation of the asset less
the valuation of encumbrance thereon?
Heard
Mr. S.N.Soparkar, the learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mrs.
Swati Soparkar for the Appellant.
He
has pointed out that in assessee’s own case, earlier Tax Appeal is
already admitted. He placed the copy of the order passed by this
Court in Tax Appeal No. 34 to 36 of 2005 on record.
In
the said ax Appeals, following two substantial questions of law
were framed by this Court:
[a]
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was
right in law in holding that the encumbrance
created vide agreement dated 27/3/1982 would
operate as a restrictive covenant within the
meaning of Rule 21 of Schedule III of the Wealth
Tax Act,1957?
[b] Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of
the case, agreement dated 27/3/1982 between the
trustees of Smt. Pushpavati Kantilal Family
Trust No.3 and Master Rajal Prafulbhai, one of
the beneficiaries, would operate as a binding
document qua the assessee, the other beneficiary,
despite distribution of the assets by the
Trustees ?”
Since the facts are identical, the same two questions are framed for determination and consideration of this Court for this year too, after the appeal being admtited.
Notice to the other side. Additional paper book, if any, to be filed within three months from today.
To be heard with Tax Appeal Nos. 34 to 36 of 2005.
(K.A.Puj,J)
(Rajesh H. Shukla,J)
Jayanti*
Top