{"id":30925,"date":"1976-03-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1976-03-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976"},"modified":"2017-11-08T22:09:18","modified_gmt":"2017-11-08T16:39:18","slug":"commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976","title":{"rendered":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 142, \t\t 1976 SCR (3) 579<\/div>\n
Author: P Goswami<\/div>\n
Bench: Goswami, P.K.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCOMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nHINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT10\/03\/1976\n\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nBENCH:\nGOSWAMI, P.K.\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1977 AIR  142\t\t  1976 SCR  (3) 579\n 1977 SCC  (3) 356\n\n\nACT:\n     Wealth Tax\t Act, 1957  (Act XXVII of 1957)Sec. 7(1)(2)-\nValuation of'  depreciable  assets-Valuation  of  assets  in\nbalance Sheet, if not proper, whether depreciation under the\nIncome Tax  Act can  be taken  into account  Onus  to  prove\nvaluation.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The respondent  assessee maintains\t accounts regularly.\nIn the\taccounts maintained  by\t him  adequate\tdepreciation\ncould not  be provided in the balance sheet in regard to the\ndepreciable fixed  assets on  account of  paucity of profits\nand hence  the depreciation as provided in the balance sheet\nwas very  much lower  than the\tdepreciation allowable under\nthe Income  Tax Act.  The assessee claimed before the Wealth\nTax officer that in computing the wealth on the basis of the\nbalance sheet  he should reduce the book value of the assets\nby the\tdifference between the written down value that would\nbe determined  for the\tpurpose of  Income Tax\tAct and\t the\nactual book  figures disclosed\tby the\tbalance\t sheet.\t The\nWealth Tax  officer rejected  the contention of the assessee\nand estimated  the net\tvalue of  the assets as shown in the\nbalance sheets\tfor the\t respective.  years.  The  appellate\nAssistant Commissioner\tconfirmed the  orders of  the Wealth\nTax  officer.\tThe  Appellate\tTribunal,  however,  took  a\ncontrary view  and held\t that where  proper depreciation has\nnot been allowed in the balance sheet it is proper to accept\nthe written  down value\t of the assets as worked out for the\npurpose of  income tax\tassessments. On\t a reference made to\nthe High  Court, the  High Court  answered the\tquestion  in\nfavour of the assessee.\n     Allowing an  appeal by certificate under section 29 (1)\nof the Wealth Tax Act.\n^\n     HELD: Under  Section 7(1)\tof-the Wealth  Tax  Act\t the\nvalue of  any  asset  is  the  market  value.  Section\t7(2)\nprovides that notwithstanding anything in section 7(1) where\nthe assessee  carries on  business for\twhich  accounts\t are\nmaintained by  him regularly  the  Wealth  Tax\tofficer\t may\ninstead of  determining separately  the value  of each asset\nheld by\t the assessee  in such\tbusiness, determine  the net\nvalue of the assets of the business as a whole having regard\nto the\tbalance sheet  of such\tbusiness as on the valuation\ndate  and   making   such   adjustments\t  therein   as\t the\ncircumstances of  the case  might require. The object of the\nWealth Tax  officer under section 7 is to arrive at the true\nvalue of the assets of the business. If what is shown in the\nbalance sheet  is not the true value of the assets disclosed\nit is  open to\tthe  assessee  to  satisfy  the\t Wealth\t Tax\nOfficer. by  producing relevant\t materials  that  the  value\ngiven of  the fixed  assets in the balance sheets is not the\ntrue value,  and, therefore  a reduced\tvalue of  the assets\nshould be taken into account. In case the assessee wants the\nwritten down  value to\tbe accepted  it is  open to  him  to\nestablish, by  acceptable reason that the written down value\nrepresent the  proper value  of the  assets at\tthe relevant\ndate. The  onus in  that  case\twould  be  entirely  on\t the\nassessee. Merely  a statement  that on account of paucity of\nprofits adequate  depreciation would  not be provided for in\nthe balance  sheet is  not sufficient  to discharge the onus\nwhich rests  upon the  assessee. The  judgment of  the\tHigh\nCourt is  set aside  and the  question answered\t against the\nassessee. [581E-H, 582A-B, H, 583A. 584C]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 894-896
\nof 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     From the Judgment and order dated the 29th January 1965
\nof the Calcutta High Court in Wealth Tax Matter No. 21\/52.\n<\/p>\n
580<\/span><\/p>\n
     R.N. Sechthey and S. P. Nayar, for the Appellant.
\n     Leila Seth,  Neelima Thakur,  Praveen Kumar  and B.  P.
\nMaheshwari for the Respondent.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     GOSWAMI, J.-These\tappeals are  by certificate  of\t the
\nCalcutta High  Court under  section 29(1)  of the Wealth-tax
\nAct (briefly the Act).\n<\/p>\n
     The  assessment   years  of   the\trespondent   company
\n(hereinafter to\t be described  as the  assessee) involved in
\nthe composite  reference to  the High  Court  under  section
\n27(1) of  the Act are 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60 for which
\nthe corresponding valuation dates are 31st March, 1957, 31st
\nMarch, 1958 and 31st March, 1959.\n<\/p>\n
     The only  common question\tof law which was referred to
\nthe High  Court appertaining  to all  the  three  assessment
\nyears is in the following terms:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Whether on  the facts and in the circumstances of
\n     the case  and in view of the provisions of section 7(2)
\n     of the  Wealth-tax Act,  an adjustment could be made in
\n     ascertaining the net value of the depreciable assets of
\n     the assessee  company by  substituting the written down
\n     value of  the assets  computed under the Indian Income-
\n     tax Act for the value as shown in the balance sheet”.<\/p>\n
     The facts\tappearing from\tthe statement of the case as
\nwell as\t the various orders annexed therewith are briefly as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
     The assessee claimed before the Wealth-tax officer that
\nin computing  the wealth  on the  basis of balance sheet the
\nIncome-tax officer  should reduce  the\tbook  value  of\t the
\nassets by the difference between the written down value that
\nwould be  determined for  the purpose  of Income-tax Act and
\nthe actual  book figures disclosed by the balance sheet. The
\ndifference between the book value and the written down value
\namounted  to   Rs.  95,69,070\/-,  Rs.  67,78,304\/-  and\t Rs.
\n36,15,678\/-  respectively   for\t the   three   years   under
\nreference. The\tonly contention\t common to the three appeals
\nrelated\t to  the  valuation  of\t the  fixed  assets  of\t the
\nassessee. The  Wealth-tax officer  proceeded  under  section
\n7(2) (a) and computed the value of the assets at the figures
\nshown in the balance sheets on the material valuation dates.
\nThe assessee,  however, contended  that regard\tbeing had to
\nthe depreciable assets the written down value determined for
\nthe purpose  of Income-tax  assessment should be taken to be
\nthe value  of the assets for the purpose of inclusion in the
\nnet wealth and not the value shown in the respective balance
\nsheets. It was not disputed that adequate depreciation could
\nnot be\tprovided for  in the balance sheets in regard to the
\ndepreciable fixed  assets on  account of  paucity of profits
\nand hence  the depreciation as provided for in the books was
\nvery much  lower than  the depreciation\t allowable under the
\nprovisions of  the Indian  Income-tax  Act.  The  Wealth-tax
\nofficer\t rejected   the\t contention   of  the  assessee\t and
\nestimated the  net value  of the  assets  as  shown  in\t the
\nbalance sheets\tfor  the  respective  years.  The  Appellate
\nAssistant Commissioner\tconfirmed the  orders of the Wealth-
\ntax officer in the appeals filed by the assessee.\n<\/p>\n
581<\/span><\/p>\n
     The Appellate  Tribunal, however,\ttook a contrary view
\nand held that-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “in all  such cases  where proper depreciation has
\n     not been  allowed for  in the  balance  sheet  for\t any
\n     reason whatsoever,\t it is\tproper to accept the written
\n     down value\t of the assets as worked out for the purpose
\n     of the Income-tax assessments.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Tribunal,  therefore, directed the Wealth-tax officer to
\nadopt the  written down\t value of  the assets  as the  value
\nthereof for  inclusion in  the net  wealth for all the years
\nunder reference.\n<\/p>\n
     At the  instance of  the Commissioner of Wealth-tax the
\nquestion set  out earlier  was referred\t to the\t High  Court
\nunder section  27(1) of\t the Act.  The\tHigh  Court  by\t the
\nimpugned judgment  of January  29, 1965,  following  another
\ndecision delivered  on\tthe  same  day\tin  Commissioner  of
\nWealth-tax,  Calcutta\tv.  Tungabhadra\t Industries<\/a>  limited
\nanswered the  question in  the affirmative  and in favour of
\nthe assessee. Hence the present appeals by certificate.\n<\/p>\n
     The decision  in  the  Tungabhadra\t Industries  Limited
\n(supra), which\twas followed by the High Court, was reversed
\nby this\t Court\tin  the\t Commissioner  of  Wealth-tax,\tWest
\nBengal-II v.  Tungabhadra Industries Ltd.<\/a> on August 8, 1969.
\nThis Court  following an  earlier decision  of this Court in
\nKesoram Industries  and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of
\nWealth-tax (Central),  Calcutta,<\/a> accepted  the contention of
\nthe Revenue.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 7\tof the\tAct at\tthe material  time stood  as
\nfollows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) The  value of any asset, other than cash, for
\n\t       the purposes  of this Act, shall be estimated
\n\t       to be  the price\t which in the opinion of the
\n\t       Wealth-tax officer  it would  fech if sold in
\n\t       the open market on the valuation date.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (2)  Notwithstanding anything\t contained  in\tsub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t       section (1)-<\/p>\n
\t       (a)  where the  assessee\t is  carrying  on  a
\n\t\t    business   for    which   accounts\t are
\n\t\t    maintained by him regularly, the Wealth-
\n\t\t    tax officer\t may, instead of determining
\n\t\t    separately the  value of each asset held
\n\t\t    by\tthe   assessee\tin   such  business,
\n\t\t    determine the net value of the assets of
\n\t\t    the business as a whole having regard to
\n\t\t    the balance-sheet of such business as on
\n\t\t    the\t valuation   date  and\tmaking\tsuch
\n\t\t    adjustments therein as the circumstances
\n\t\t    of the case may require…….”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is,\ttherefore, clear  that when the assessee is carrying
\non a  business for  which accounts  are\t maintained  by\t him
\nregularly it  is open to the Wealth tax officer to determine
\nthe net\t value of the assets of the business as a whole with
\nreference to  the balance  sheet  of  such  business  as  on
\nvaluation date\tand to\tmake such adjustments therein as the
\ncircumstances
\n582<\/span>
\nof the\tcase may  require.  The\t object\t of  the  Wealth-tax
\nofficer in determining the value of the assets under section
\n7 is  to arrive\t at the\t true value  of the  assets  of\t the
\nbusiness. If what has been shown in the balance sheet is not
\nthe true  value of  the assets\tdisclosed, it is open to the
\nassessee to  satisfy the  Wealth-tax  officer  by  producing
\nrelevant materials  that the value given of the fixed assets
\nin the balance sheet is not the true value and, therefore, a
\nreduced value  of the  assets should  be taken into account.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The onus in that case would be entirely upon the assessee to
\nsatisfy the  Wealth-tax officer\t that what  is shown  in the
\nbalance sheet is not the actual and true value of the assets
\non the\tvaluation date.\t The decision  will depend  upon the
\nfacts and circumstances disclosed in each case.\n<\/p>\n
     This Court\t in the\t Tungabhadra Industries case (supra)
\ndealing with the same question observed as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It is  also open  to the assessee to establish by
\n     acceptable reasons\t that the  written down value of any
\n     particular asset  represents the  proper value  of\t the
\n     asset on the relevant valuation date. In the absence of
\n     any material  produced by\tthe assessee  to demonstrate
\n     that the  written down  value is  the real\t value,\t the
\n     Wealth-tax officer\t would be justified in a normal case
\n     in taking the value given by the assessee itself to its
\n     fixed assets in its balance-sheet for the relevant year
\n     as the real value of the assets for the purposes of the
\n     Wealth-tax. It is a question of fact in each case as to
\n     whether the  depreciation has  to be taken into account
\n     in ascertaining  the true value of the assets. The onus
\n     of proof  is on the assessee who must  produce reliable
\n     material to  show that  the written  down value  of the
\n     assets and\t not the  balance-sheet value  is  the\ttrue
\n     value. If,\t therefore, the\t assessee merely claims that
\n     the written  down value of the assets should be adopted
\n     but fails\tto produce  any materials  to show  that the
\n     written down  value is  the true  value, the Wealth-tax
\n     officer  is   justified  in  rejecting  the  claim\t and
\n     adopting the  values shown\t by the\t assessee himself in
\n     his balance sheet as the true value of his assets”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We should\thave thought  that the\tquestion  raised  in
\nthese appeals  is squarely  covered by\tthe above  decision.
\nEven so, Mrs. Leila Seth submits that in the instant case it
\nis admitted that adequate depreciation could not be provided
\nfor in\tthe balance sheet in regard to the depreciable fixed
\nassets on  account of  paucity\tof  profits  and  hence\t the
\ndepreciation as provided in the balance sheet was much lower
\nthan the  depreciation allowable.  According to\t the learned
\ncounsel this  fact is  sufficient to  displace\tthe  balance
\nsheet as  a prima facie evidence and substitute in its place
\nthe written  down value\t and onus  shifts on  the Revenue to
\nestablish that paucity of profits is wrong.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  true, as described in the Statement of the case,
\nthat it\t was not  disputed that\t adequate depreciation could
\nnot be\tprovided for  in the  balance sheet  on\t account  of
\npaucity of  profits. But we are unable to hold that merely a
\nstatement to that effect is sufficient to discharge the onus
\nwhich rests upon the assessee to establish that the value of
\nthe
\n583<\/span>
\nassets shown  in the  balance sheet is not the real value of
\nthe assets  as on   the valuation date. If the contention of
\nthe learned  counsel is\t accepted, it  will be tantamount to
\nlaying down  a rule  that in  determination of\tthe value of
\nassets the written down value allowable under the Income-tax
\nAct shall  always be the value of the assets. In that event,
\nthere would  be no necessity for any exercise by the Wealth-
\ntax officer.  That is, however, not the intention of section
\n7 which\t clearly shows\tthat the Wealth-tax officer may make
\nsuch adjustments  in the  value of  the assets\tshown in the
\nbalance sheet  in accordance  with the\trequirements of\t the
\ncircumstances disclosed by the assessee. Those circumstances
\nwhich will  be disclosed  by the assessee must relate to the
\ndetermination of  the real  value of the assets irrespective
\nof what\t is shown in the balance sheet if the assessee seeks
\na lower\t figure than appearing in the same. Thus onus is not
\ndischarged by  merely stating  that since profits in a given
\nyear are  less or  nil little  or no  provision was made for
\ndepreciation  of  the  assets  in  the\tbalance\t sheet.\t The
\nassessee  must\t also  show   further  to  what\t extent\t the
\ndepreciation has  resulted in  lowering\t the  value  of\t the
\nassets compared\t to that  mentioned in the balance sheet and
\nwhether the  written down  value computed  under the  Indian
\nIncome-tax Act\tin fact\t represents the\t lower value.  It is
\nopen, as  observed by  this Court in the case of Tungabhadra
\nIndustries (supra),  to establish  after producing  relevant
\nmaterial that  the value  of the fixed assets in the balance
\nsheet is artificially inflated. Further in case the assessee
\nwants the  written down\t value to be accepted, it is open to
\nhim to\testablish, as  mentioned in that case, by acceptable
\nreason, that  the written  down value  represents the proper
\nvalue of the assets at the relevant date.\n<\/p>\n
     The learned  counsel  also\t drew  our  attention  to  a
\ndecision of  this Court\t in the\t Commissioner of Wealth-tax,
\nWest Bengal  v. Aluminium  Corporation of  India  Ltd.,<\/a>\t (1)
\nwhere at  page 172 there is an observation that the value of
\nthe assets shown in the balance sheet is not conclusive. The
\nvalue of  the assets  shown in\tthe  balance  sheet  is\t not
\nconclusive in  the sense  that it  can be demonstrated to be
\nmore or less than what is shown therein. That is the core of
\ndetermination  under  section  7(2)  (a)  of  the  Act.\t The
\nobservation of\tthis Court  in the  above  case\t has  to  be
\nunderstood only in that context.\n<\/p>\n
     We may  in this  connection refer\tto clause (b) of the
\nproviso to  clause (vi)\t of sub-section (2) of section 10 of
\nthe Income-tax\tAct, 1922  where a  provision  is  made\t for
\ncarrying forward of depreciation allowance for the following
\nyear or\t years where  full effect  cannot be  given  to\t the
\nallowance in  a particular  year owing\tto  there  being  no
\nprofits or  gains chargeable  for that\tyear or owing to the
\nprofits and  gains chargeable being less than the allowance.
\nIf an  assessee chooses\t to carry  forward the\tdepreciation
\nallowance, and shows the value of the assets at a particular
\nfigure in  the balance\tsheet, he cannot by merely asserting
\nthat there  was no  profit or  very little profit compel the
\ntax authorities\t to  discard  the  value  mentioned  in\t the
\nbalance sheet  and to  accept the  written down\t value.\t The
\ndepreciation must  have nexus  with real value of the assets
\nitself and  the burden\tis upon\t the assessee to satisfy the
\nWealth-tax officer by producing relevant reliable materials
\n584<\/span>
\nfor determination  of the  actual  and\ttrue  value  of\t the
\nassets. It  may be  that in  a given  year the\twritten down
\nvalue may be the real value of the assets but that cannot be
\nthe inexorable\trule in\t determining the value of the assets
\nunder section 7 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Mrs. Seth\tdrew our  attention to\ta  decision  of\t the
\nCalcutta  High\tCourt  in  the\tCommissioner  of  Wealth-tax
\n(Central) Calcutta  v. Mohan  Lal Nopany. This was a case of
\nbreak up  value of  certain shares  of a  company. There was
\nmaterial in that case to indicate that the balance sheet did
\nnot  represent\t the  correct\tvalue  of  the\tshares.\t The
\nobservation in that case must be taken to be confined to its
\nown facts.  To the  extent observations\t are  made  in\tthat
\ncontrary to  the view we have taken in the matter, we cannot
\nagree with them.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  result the\t judgment of  the High\tCourt is set
\naside and  the question\t is answered in the negative against
\nthe assessee  and in  favour of the Revenue. The appeals are
\nallowed with one set of costs.\n<\/p>\n
P.H.P.\t\t\t\t\t    Appeals allowed.\n585<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 Equivalent citations: 1977 AIR 142, 1976 SCR (3) 579 Author: P Goswami Bench: Goswami, P.K. PETITIONER: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Vs. RESPONDENT: HINDUSTAN MOTORS LIMITED DATE OF JUDGMENT10\/03\/1976 BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. BENCH: GOSWAMI, P.K. KHANNA, HANS RAJ CITATION: 1977 […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-30925","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nCommissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 - 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\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\" \/>\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=\"1976-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-08T16:39:18+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976\",\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-08T16:39:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\"},\"wordCount\":2319,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\",\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1976-03-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-08T16:39:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 - 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\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1976-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-08T16:39:18+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976","datePublished":"1976-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-08T16:39:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976"},"wordCount":2319,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976","name":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1976-03-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-08T16:39:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/commissioner-of-wealth-tax-vs-hindustan-motors-limited-on-10-march-1976#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Commissioner Of Wealth Tax vs Hindustan Motors Limited on 10 March, 1976"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/30925","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=30925"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/30925\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=30925"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=30925"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=30925"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}