{"id":810,"date":"2002-08-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002"},"modified":"2015-07-20T05:52:53","modified_gmt":"2015-07-20T00:22:53","slug":"m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Madras High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002<\/div>\n<pre>       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDated: 21\/08\/2002\n\nCoram\n\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice R.JAYASIMHA BABU\nand\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM\n\nT.C. No. 511 of 1993\nand T.C.Nos. 512 to 517 of 1993\n\n\nM.K.Kuppuraj (HUF),\nCoimbatore.     ..Applicant in\n                T.C.No.511 of 1993\n\nM.K.Kuppuraj (individual),\nCoimbatore.     ..Applicant in\nT.C.Nos.512 to 515 of 1993\n\nShri M.K.Ananthakumar,\nCoimbatore.     ..Applicant in\nT.C.Nos.516 and 517 of 1993\n\n-Vs-\n\nThe Commissioner of Wealth-tax,\nCoimbatore.     ..Respondent in all\n                the Tax Cases\n\n\n        Tax Case References under Sec.256 (1) of the Income-tax Act,  referred\nby 'A\" Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras.\n\n\n!For Applicants :  Mr.R.Meenakshisundaram\n\nFor Respondent :  Mr.  T.Ayyasamy,\n                Spl.  GP (Taxes)\n\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n<p>(Order of the Court was made by R.JAYASIMHA BABU, J.)<br \/>\n        The  question  referred to us at the instance of the assessee is as to<br \/>\nwhether the Tribunal was right in having applied the proviso to Section 7  (4)<br \/>\nof  the  Wealth  Tax  Act  in respect of a part of the property and not to the<br \/>\nwhole of it.  The assessment year is 1981-82.\n<\/p>\n<p>        2.  The assessee owns a house property called &#8220;Hawarden&#8221;  at  Thiruchy<br \/>\nRoad, Coimbatore.    The  property consists of 175 cents of land with built up<br \/>\narea of 1187 sq.  Metres.  The assessees claimed the benefit of the proviso to<br \/>\nSection 7 (4) of the Wealth Tax Act.  The assessing authority  while  granting<br \/>\nexemption under that provision, limited it to an extent of 88 cents out of the<br \/>\n175  cents,  after  expressing  the  view  that that extent was the reasonable<br \/>\nextent which could be regarded as the land  appurtenant  to  the  house.    He<br \/>\nthereafter  estimated  the  value of the remaining 87 cents and calculated the<br \/>\nsame in the assessable wealth of the  assessee.    He  relied  upon  the  Town<br \/>\nPlanning Rules which stipulated, according to him, that the open area shall be<br \/>\n&#8220;not less than 1\/3 of the area of the site open to the sky&#8221;.\n<\/p>\n<p>        3.   An  appeal to the appellate authority having proved unsuccessful,<br \/>\nthe assessee carried the matter in  further  appeal  to  the  Tribunal.    The<br \/>\nTribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner after holding that the extent<br \/>\nof land determined by the assessing officer was capable of being independently<br \/>\ndeveloped  and, therefore, that extent cannot be regarded as part of the house<br \/>\nas the remaining extent in the view of the Tribunal was sufficient  to  enable<br \/>\nthe assessee to enjoy the house.\n<\/p>\n<p>        4.  Section 7 of the Wealth Tax Act deals with the manner in which the<br \/>\nvalue of  the assets is to be determined.  Sub-section(4) thereof which is the<br \/>\nrelevant sub-section requiring our consideration reads thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>        &#8220;(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the  value<br \/>\nof  a  house  belonging  to  the  assessee  and  exclusively  used  by him for<br \/>\nresidential purposes  throughout  the  period  of  twelve  months  immediately<br \/>\npreceding  the  valuation date may, at the option of the assessee, be taken to<br \/>\nbe the price which, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, it would fetch if<br \/>\nsold in the open market on the valuation date next following the date on which<br \/>\nhe became the owner of the house, or on the valuation  date  relevant  to  the<br \/>\nassessment  year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1971, whichever valuation<br \/>\ndate is later:\n<\/p>\n<p>        Provided that where more than one house belonging to the  assessee  is<br \/>\nexclusively  used  by  him  for  residential  purposes, the provisions of this<br \/>\nsub-section shall apply only in respect  of  one  of  such  houses  which  the<br \/>\nassessee  may,  at  his  option,  specify  in this behalf in the return of net<br \/>\nwealth.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>        5.  This sub-section does not set out  a  definition  of  the  term  &#8221;<br \/>\nhouse&#8221;  nor  does  it  lay down any ceiling regarding the extent of open space<br \/>\nwhich can be regarded as part of the house.  The term &#8220;house&#8221; is  not  defined<br \/>\nin the definition Section 2 of the Wealth Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        6.  The tests that are required to be satisfied to attract the proviso<br \/>\nto  Section  7  (4)  are (i) that the property must belong to the assessee and\n<\/p>\n<p>(ii) that it should be used exclusively for &#8216;residential  purpose&#8217;.    In  the<br \/>\nevent  of the assessee having more than one residential house, option is given<br \/>\nto the assessee to specify the house in respect of which he  wishes  to  avail<br \/>\nthe benefit under that proviso.\n<\/p>\n<p>        7.   It is the case of the assessee that the house in respect of which<br \/>\nthe benefit under the  proviso  to  Section  7  (4)  has  been  availed  is  a<br \/>\nresidential house being used by the assessee for the purpose of his residence.<br \/>\nThat fact  is not disputed by the Revenue.  The house itself is a large house.<br \/>\nIt also has a large open space around it.  The Wealth Tax Act does not  impose<br \/>\nany  limit  on  the extent of open space which may be retained by the assessee<br \/>\nfor the better enjoyment of his residential house.  The limitations  regarding<br \/>\nthe  holding of urban land is not the subject matter of the Wealth Tax Act but<br \/>\nof a separate enactment.  It was not necessary for the purpose of  Wealth  Tax<br \/>\nAct, as it stood during the relevant year, to determine the extent of the land<br \/>\nwhich  can  be regarded as either reasonably necessary or as being appuretnant<br \/>\nto the house.  Once it is found that the house is infact a  residential  house<br \/>\nand  that  the  land is being used as the ground attached to the house for the<br \/>\nbenefit of the residents of the house, it remains a part of the house for  the<br \/>\npurpose of  the  proviso  to  Section  7  (4).   Importing into this provision<br \/>\nnotions as to what the assessing officer or other authorities may regrd as the<br \/>\noptimum size  or  reasonable  size  for  the  house  is  wholly  beyond  their<br \/>\njurisdiction.   It is not for the authorities to decide for the assessee as to<br \/>\nwhat the size of his house should be or the extent of the garden or other area<br \/>\nwhich the assessee should have for the house in which  he  lives.    Any  such<br \/>\nenquiry is outside the scope of the Wealth Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        8.   Learned  counsel  for  the  assessee  submitted  that the present<br \/>\nassessee is a member of the family of late Sri Shanmugam Chettiar, who was  at<br \/>\none  time  the  Finance Minister for the Union of India and that the house had<br \/>\nbeen purchased by him together with the enclosed grounds and that the area  of<br \/>\nthe  house  as also the extent of the grounds attached to it are the same even<br \/>\nnow.\n<\/p>\n<p>        9.  Although on account of the preasure of  population  and  the  high<br \/>\ncost  of  land  in  urban  areas,  the extent of living space available to the<br \/>\naverage urban dweller has dwindled and having the benefit of open space,  much<br \/>\nless  garden space, is almost a luxury, nevertheless, the fact that in earlier<br \/>\ntimes houses were large and that they had large open spaces around is  not  to<br \/>\nbe  whished  away  or  to  be regarded as being impermissible by reason of the<br \/>\nlimited space and the high cost of such space in more  recent  years.    If  a<br \/>\nperson  had  acquired  a  house for being used as a residential house and that<br \/>\nhouse hapened to have large open space around it for use as garden or as  play<br \/>\narea  or other purposes, as long as the house is used solely for residence and<br \/>\nthe benefit of those grounds are confined to the residents of  the  house  and<br \/>\ntheir  visitors,  such  a  house  with its grounds would qualify for exemption<br \/>\nunder Section 7 (4).  Importing individual notions as to what  should  be  the<br \/>\nreasonable size of a house or what should be the reasonable extent of the open<br \/>\nspace  around is not a permissible exercise in making the assessment under the<br \/>\nWealth Tax Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>        10.  The assessing officer has referred to  the  Town  Planning  Rules<br \/>\nwhich  stipulates that the extent of the open space around the house should be<br \/>\nnot less than one third of the built area.  Even those Rules do not  impose  a<br \/>\nlimit on  the  maximum  open  space  that  can  be left around the house.  The<br \/>\nassessing officer cannot take a rule under a different enactment specifying  a<br \/>\nminimum  and convert that into a maximum for the purpose of the Wealth Tax Act<br \/>\nand thereafter bring to tax a  part  of  the  house  which  should  have  been<br \/>\nexcluded from valuation under Section 7 (4).  The Tribunal was wholly in error<br \/>\nin upholding that exercise which the assessing officer had resorted to.\n<\/p>\n<p>        11.   When  the statute provides an exemption it is not to be whittled<br \/>\ndown arbitrarily by the assessing officers by importing their private  notions<br \/>\nof reasonableness into the provision which grants exemption.\n<\/p>\n<p>        12.   The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of<br \/>\nthe assessee and against the Revenue.\n<\/p>\n<p>Index:Yes<br \/>\nWebsite:Yes<\/p>\n<p>To<\/p>\n<p>1.  The Asst.  Registrar<br \/>\nIncome-tax Appellate Tribunal<br \/>\n121 Nungambakkam High Road<br \/>\nChennai.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.  The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai<\/p>\n<p>3.  The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) IV, Madras-34<\/p>\n<p>4.  The 2nd Income-tax Officer, Madras-2<\/p>\n<p>5.  The Commissioner of Income-tax, Madurai<\/p>\n<p>dev\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Madras High Court M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 21\/08\/2002 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice R.JAYASIMHA BABU and The Honourable Mr. Justice K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM T.C. No. 511 of 1993 and T.C.Nos. 512 to 517 of 1993 M.K.Kuppuraj (HUF), Coimbatore. ..Applicant in T.C.No.511 [&hellip;]<\/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-810","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-20T00:22:53+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T00:22:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":1377,\"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\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\",\"name\":\"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-20T00:22:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-20T00:22:53+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T00:22:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002"},"wordCount":1377,"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\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002","name":"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-20T00:22:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-k-kuppuraj-huf-vs-the-commissioner-of-wealth-tax-on-21-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M.K.Kuppuraj (Huf) vs The Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax on 21 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/810","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=810"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/810\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=810"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=810"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=810"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}