Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


CGT v. Sri Chandra Kishore Jaiswal - GIFT TAX REFERENCE No. 89 of 1984 [2004] RD-AH 532 (13 August 2004)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


G. T. R. NO. 89 OF 1984


The Commissioner of Gift Tax, Kanpur.


Sri Chandra Kishore Jaiswal, Kanpur.

Hon'ble R. K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble K. N. Ojha, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad, has referred the following questions of law under the Gift Tax Act, 1958, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for opinion to this Court.

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally correct in holding that the reversionary value of the property No. 65/135, Moti Mahal, Kanpur, gifted by the assessee be excluded from the value of the property?"

For the Assessment year 1969-70 under the Gift Tax Act the only question placed before the Tribunal related to the valuation of the respondent's 1/3rd share in property no. 65/135, Moti Mahal, Kanpur, gifted by him to Smt. Hema Devi, Smt. Krishna Devi and Smt. Surendra Kumari. The respondent had valued it at Rs. 28,264/-. The Gift Tax Officer referred the question on its valuation to the Valuation officer, who valued the same at Rs. 53,312/-. He had adjudicated the valuation of structure and reversionary value of the land. In appeal the Assistant Appellate Commissioner followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of C.IT. Vs. Smt. Ashima Sinha, 116 ITR 26 and held that the reversionary value could not be included in the value of the property when it had been valued on rental method as had been done by the Valuation Officer and therefore he excluded the reversionary value. The appeal filed by the revenue has been dismissed by the Tribunal.

We have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan, learned counsel for the revenue. Nobody has put in appearance for the assessee- opposite party.

Sri Mahajan very fairly stated that the question referred to is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Ram Saran Kajriwal (1987) 168 ITR 485.

Respectfully following the decision we answer the question in affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Dt/- 13.8.2004



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.