{"id":258434,"date":"2003-12-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-11-30T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003"},"modified":"2015-07-12T12:26:50","modified_gmt":"2015-07-12T06:56:50","slug":"the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n In the High Court of Judicature at Madras\n\nDated: 01\/12\/2003\n\nCoram\n\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Jayasimha Babu\nand\nThe Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.R. Singharavelu\n\n+Tax Case No. 130 of 2000\nand\nTax Case Nos., 179, and 184 to 186 of 2000\n\n\n#The Commissioner of Wealth-tax,\nTamilnadu  IV,\nMadras.                         ...  Appellant in\n                                all the T.Cs.\n\n-Vs-\n\n$M\/s. B.R. Theatres and\nIndustrial Concerns P.  Ltd.\nMadras.                                         ...  Respondent in\n                                                all the T.Cs.\n\n        Tax Case appeal under Section 27A<\/a> of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957  against\nthe  order  of  the  Incometax  Appellate  Tribunal, Madras \"D\" Bench, made in\nW.T.A.  Nos:  510 to 514 (Mds)\/96 dated 27.09.1999 for  the  assessment  years\n1984-85 to 1988-89.\n\n!For appellant :  Mr.  T.  Ravi Kumar,\n                Junior Standing counsel for\n                Incometax Department.\n\n^For respondent :  Mr.  Philip George and\n                Mr.  P.  Senthil Kumar\n\n\n:O R D E R\n<\/pre>\n
(Order of the Court was
\ndelivered by R.  Jayasimha Babu, J.)<\/p>\n
        The question referred is,
\n”  Whether  on  the  facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate
\nTribunal is right in law in holding that  the  immovable  properties  held  as
\nbusiness assets cannot form part of the subject matter of wealth-tax?”
\nThe assessment years are 1985-85 to 1988-89.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  The assets referred to in the question are admittedly assets which
\nfall within  the  scope of Section 40<\/a> (3) of the Finance Act<\/a> 1983.  The ground
\non which the assessee contend that the value of the assets should not be taken
\ninto account for determining the assessee’s liability is that these assets are
\nheld by the assessee as stock-in-trade.  The assets are land and buildings.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  This  Court  in  the  case  of  Commissioner  of  Wealth  Tax  vs.
\nVaradharaja Theatres Pvt.   Ltd<\/a>.    [(2001)  250  I.T.R.    523] held that the
\nexemption granted to cinema houses with effect from 1.4.1989  by  the  Finance
\nAct<\/a>  1988  while computing the wealth of the closely held companies, which are
\nsubject to wealth tax, was not retrospective and that  it  would  take  effect
\nonly from  1st April 1989.  This Court in that case dissented from the view to
\nthe contrary that had been taken by the Karnataka High Court in  the  case  of
\nCommissioner of Wealth Tax vs.  Prakashi Talkies Pvt.  Ltd<\/a>.  (1993) 202 I.T.R.\n<\/p>\n
121.<\/p>\n
        4.  Subsequently,  this  Court  in the case of CWT v.  Vummidi Bangaru
\nChetty (P) Ltd.  (2002) 254 I.T.R.  332,  held  that  the  value  of  filigree
\nsilver  and  silverware,  held  by the assessee therein as stock in trade were
\nassessable to wealth tax for the assessment years 1984-85 to 19 88-89.    More
\nrecently, this  Court  in  the  case  of  CWT  v.  Reliance Motor Company Ltd.
\nreported in (2003) 260 I.T.R.  571, held that for the assessment year  1984-85
\nthe  value  of  the  motor  cars  which form part of the stock in trade of the
\nassessee was not exempt from wealth tax.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  The view taken  in  all  the  aforementioned  cases  is  that  the
\namendment  effected  to Section 40<\/a> of the Finance Act, 1983 by the Finance Act<\/a>
\nof 1988 is only prospective and not retrospective.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  Learned counsel for the assessee here,  despite  those  decisions,
\nsought  to  contend that the value of the stock in trade was not includible in
\nthe net wealth, by placing reliance on a decision of Rajasthan High  Court  in
\nthe case of CIT  vs.  Jodhan Real Estate Development Co.  P.  Ltd<\/a>., (2003) 259
\nITR 79.  That judgment, inter alia, placed reliance on  the  decision  of  the
\nKarnataka  High  Court, which has been dissented from by his Court in the case
\nof Varadharaja Theatres.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  With respect, we are unable to subscribe to the view taken in that
\ncase of Jodhan, wherein it was held that the value of the cinema  house  could
\nnot be included in thenet wealth of the assessee even prior to 0.04.1989, even
\nthough  ‘cinema  house’  was  specifically  included  in the exempted class of
\nbuilding only after the amendment effected by the Finance Act<\/a>, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  The test to  be  applied  for  deciding  as  to  whether  a  later
\namendment   should  be  given  retrospective  effect,  despite  a  legislative
\ndeclaration specifying a prospective date as the date from which the amendment
\nis to come into force, is as to whether without  the  aid  of  the  subsequent
\namendment  the unamended provision is capable of being so construed as to take
\nwithin it’s ambit the subsequent amendment.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  Applying that test it is not possible for us to hold that stock in
\ntrade which is not excluded from wealth-tax in Section 40<\/a> of the Finance  Act,
\n1983, is nevertheless to be regarded as having been excluded.  No part of that
\nsection is capable of being given such a construction.\n<\/p>\n
        10.   The  decision  of the Supreme Court in the case of Allied Motors
\n(P) Ltd., vs.  CIT<\/a>, reported  in  (1997)  224  ITR  677,  on  which  also  the
\nassessee’s counsel placed reliance does not support the view that in all cases
\nof  unintended  hardship the later dment should be regarded as forming part of
\nthe originally enacted law.  In that case the Court while considering  Section
\n43B<\/a>  of  the  Act and the amendment effected thereto by the Finance Act<\/a>, 1987,
\nwhich inter alia inserted a new proviso as also an explanation  held  that  as
\nthe  explanation was given retrospective effect, the proviso was also required
\nto be given that effect, in order to place a reasonable  construction  on  the
\nsection as amended.\n<\/p>\n
        11.  The Court in that case held that, “a proviso which is inserted to
\nremedy  the  unintended  consequence to make the provision workable, a proviso
\nwhich supplies an obvious omission in  the  section  to  give  the  section  a
\nreasonable   interpretation,  requires  to  be  treated  as  retrospective  in
\noperation, so that a reasonable interpretation can be given to the section  as
\na whole”.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The  non  exclusion  of stock in trade from the ambit of levy of
\nwealth tax cannot per se be regarded as an ‘obvious omission’, nor  is  giving
\nit  immunity from levy of wealth tax necessary for reasonably interpreting the
\nunamended provision.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  We do not therefore see any good reason to depart from  the  view
\ntaken  by this Court in the earlier decision that the Finance Act<\/a>, 19 88 which
\namended portions of Finance Act<\/a>, 1983, and extended the exemption from  wealth
\ntax, inter alia, to the value of cinema house and the value of stock in trade,
\nis not retrospective.\n<\/p>\n
        14.  The question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the
\nassessee.\n<\/p>\n
Index :  Yes
\nWebsite :  Yes<\/p>\n
gp<\/p>\n
Copies to<\/p>\n
1.  The Assistant Registrar,
\nIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal,
\nRajaji Bhavan, III Floor,
\nBesant Nagar,
\nMadras  90.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Secretary,
\nCentral Board of Revenue,
\nNew Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Commissioner of Wealth Tax,
\nTamilnadu IV,
\nMadras<\/p>\n
4.  The Commissioner of
\n        Wealth Tax (Appeals VI),
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
5.  The Assistant Commissioner
\nof Wealth Tax,
\nCompany Circle IV (1),
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
6.  The Deputy Commissioner of
\nWealth Tax,
\nRange IV,
\nMadras.\n<\/p>\n
?In the High Court of Judicature at Madras<\/p>\n
%Dated: 30\/12\/2003<\/p>\n
Coram<\/p>\n
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Jayasimha Babu
\nand
\nThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Singharavelu<\/p>\n
Writ Appeal No. 1322 of 1997<\/p>\n
1.  The Council of the Institute
\n      of Chartered Accountants of India
\n    P.B. No: 7100,
\n    Indraprastha Marg,
\n    New Delhi – 110 002.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The President,
\n    The Institute of Chartered
\n      Accountants of India,
\n    P.B. No: 7100,
\n    Indraprastha Marg,
\n    New Delhi – 110 002.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Chairman,
\n    Disciplinary Committee of
\n     the Institute of Chartered
\n     Accountants of India,
\n    P.B. No: 7100,
\n    Indraprastha Marg,
\n    New Delhi – 110 002.\n<\/p>\n
4.  The Secretary,
\n    The Institute of Chartered
\n      Accountants of India,
\n    P.B. No: 7100,
\n    Indraprastha Marg,
\n    New Delhi – 110 002.                                …  Appellants<\/p>\n
-Vs-\n<\/p>\n
1.  R. Ayyavoo<\/p>\n
2.  Tamil Nadu State Transport
\n       Corporation (Kumbakonam
\n       Division I) Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
    Railway Station Road,
\n    Kumbakonam – 612 001.  **<\/p>\n
3.  Joint Secretary to the
\n    Government of Tamil Nadu,
\n    Transport Department,
\n    Office of the Commissioner &
\n      Secretary to Government,
\n    Fort St. George,
\n    Madras – 9.                                 …  Respondents<\/p>\n
(** 2nd respondent name had been
\n  amended as per order of the
\n  Court dated 21.11.2001 made
\n  in C.M.P. No: 5725 of 2001)<\/p>\n
        Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent Appeal against the  order
\nof a learned  single  Judge  of  this  Court made in W.P.  No:  11434 of 1 987
\ndated 04.03.1997.\n<\/p>\n
!For appellants :  Mr.  S.  Sampath Kumar,
\n                Senior Counsel for
\n                M\/s.  Sampathkumar Associates<\/p>\n
^For 1st resp.  :  Mr.  M.  Vellaisamy<\/p>\n
For 2nd resp.  :  Mr.  John for
\n                M\/s.Ramasubramaniam Asst.\n<\/p>\n
For 3rd resp.  :  Mrs.  N.G.R.  Kalaiselvi,
\n                Special Govt.  Pleader<\/p>\n
:J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
(Judgment of the Court was
\ndelivered by R.  Jayasimha Babu, J.)<\/p>\n
        We are rather surprised  at  the  order  under  appeal  by  which  the
\nInstitute of Chartered Accountants has been prevented from taking disciplinary
\nproceedings against auditors whose alleged failure to perform their duties had
\nresulted  in  loss  of several millions of rupees to the Transport Corporation
\nowned by the State.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  A complaint in that regard was made by the Joint Secretary to  the
\nState Government which owns all the shares in the Corporation.  That complaint
\nnames all the persons who were responsible for the misconduct.  The persons so
\nnamed were  internal auditor, as also the statutory auditors.  It sets out the
\nnature of the omissions committed by them namely their failure to  verify  the
\ncash, their  failure  to  verify  the  records, etc.  as a result of which the
\ndefalcation that had occurred was not brought to  light.    Had  the  internal
\nauditors and statutory auditors been diligent, such defalcation would not have
\noccurred  and  as a result of their proper scrutiny had they brought the facts
\nto light at the earliest instance, proper  remedial  action  could  have  been
\ntaken.\n<\/p>\n
        3.  This  complaint,  by  its very nature, is a serious complaint.  It
\nrefers  to  the  failure  on  the  part  of  the  auditors  to  perform  their
\nprofessional duties.  The complaint was made to the professional body which is
\nconcerned with  the  maintenance  of  high  standard among its members.  After
\nscrutiny of the complaint the Council was of the prima  facie  view  that  the
\nmatter   required  a  closer  examination  and  enquiry  by  the  disciplinary
\ncommittee.  Even before that step could be taken  by  the  Council,  the  writ
\npetitioner,  who  was  the  internal auditor, approached the Court by filing a
\nwrit petition.  The writ petition remained pending in this Court for ten years
\nand came to be heard in the year  1997.    By  the  order  under  appeal,  the
\nproceedings  initiated against the petitioner, which was in reality, yet to be
\ngone into  by  the  disciplinary  committee,  were  quashed.     We   see   no
\njustification whatsoever for the order so made.\n<\/p>\n
        4.   The Chartered Accountants Act<\/a> 1949 is an Act which is intended to
\nregulate the profession of Chartered Accountants.  The  Chartered  Accountants
\nplay  a vital role in monitering finances of and ensuring financial discipline
\nin businesses more particularly of companies registered  under  the  Companies
\nAct<\/a>.   They  are the watchdogs for the shareholders of the Companies and it is
\non their responsible discharge of their duties that the shareholders’ interest
\nare adequately protected.  If those professionals fail to perform their duties
\nin the manner required of them, such failure would not be  merely  a  case  of
\nserious  misconduct  on  the  part  of a professional but a lso prejudices the
\ntrust which the society has reposed in those professionals with regard to  the
\ncompetent discharge of the duties entrusted to them.  In this case, the monies
\ndefalcated are  from  Corporation  owned  by the State.  The funds are clearly
\npublic funds.  That de falcation was made possible by reason of the failure on
\nthe part of the professional Chartered Accountants to perform their  functions
\nin the manner that was required of them.  An enquiry into their conduct with a
\nview  to take appropriate disciplinary action was warranted not only to ensure
\nthat their misconduct did not tarnish the image of the profession of Chartered
\nAccountants in general, but also to protect public who had reposed  confidence
\nin  their  professional  competence  and  had employed them for the purpose of
\nperforming auditing and various other functions which a  Chartered  Accountant
\nis required to do under the provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
        5.   The action taken by the Council on the report of the disciplinary
\ncommittee is required to be brought to the notice  of  the  High  Court  which
\nwould  scrutinise  the  record  to  make  sure that the professional Chartered
\nAccountant has not been unfairly or improperly treated.  There are  sufficient
\nsafeguards under the provisions of the Act.  This Court, which is the ultimate
\nguardian  of  the profession of the Chartered Accountants, in matters of their
\ndiscipline, should  not  at  the  very  threshold  prevent  the  Council  from
\nenquiring  into  a  complaint properly made by a responsible senior officer of
\nthe State Government.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  We set aside the order under appeal and dismiss the writ petition.
\nThe writ appeal is allowed.\n<\/p>\n
gp<\/p>\n
1.  Tamil Nadu State Transport
\nCorporation (Kumbakonam
\nDivision I) Ltd.\n<\/p>\n
Railway Station Road,
\nKumbakonam – 612 001.  **<\/p>\n
2.  Joint Secretary to the
\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu,
\nTransport Department,
\nOffice of the Commissioner &
\nSecretary to Government,
\nFort St.  George,
\nMadras – 9.\n<\/p>\n
\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 01\/12\/2003 Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Jayasimha Babu and The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.R. Singharavelu +Tax Case No. 130 of 2000 and Tax Case Nos., 179, and 184 to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-258434","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-12T06:56:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T06:56:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1972,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\",\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-11-30T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-12T06:56:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-12T06:56:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003","datePublished":"2003-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T06:56:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003"},"wordCount":1972,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003","name":"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-11-30T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-12T06:56:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-ms-b-r-theatres-and-on-1-december-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs M\/S. B.R. Theatres And on 1 December, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258434","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=258434"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/258434\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=258434"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=258434"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=258434"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}