Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.W.T. versus D.N.BHARGAVA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C.W.T. v. D.N.Bhargava - WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 156 of 1990 [2005] RD-AH 129 (10 January 2005)


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).


Court No. 37

W.T.R. No. 156 of 1990

C.I.T. Vs. Shri D.N. Bhargava

Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Prakash Krishna, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following question of law under Section 27 (1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, 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 in law justified in holding that the claim of the assessee for deduction u/s 5 (1) (xxxii) of the W.T. Act, was allowable?"

The assessment year involved is 1982-83. The assessee who is an individual claimed exemption as per provisions of Section 5 (1) (xxxii) of the Act, in respect of the investment made in the firm M/s Bhargava Engineering Corporation on the ground that the said firm has been held as industrial undertaking by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The claim was not allowed by the Wealth Tax Officer, simply on the ground that the department has not accepted the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. However, in appeal the C.I.T. (Appeals) allowed the claim and has directed the assessing officer to allow exemption in respect of the investment in Bhargava Engineering Corporation. This order has been confirmed by the Tribunal.

Heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned Standing Counsel for the department. None appeared for the assessee.

The Tribunal has recorded a finding that M/s Bhargava Engineering Corporation is an industrial undertaking, therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim exemption of investment in M/s Bhargava Engineering Corporation in which he was one of  the partners, in view of Section 5 (1) (xxxii) of the Act. We find no legal infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has followed the order of its earlier years. The learned Standing Counsel could not point out that a different view has been taken by the High Court in the case of the assessee, than the one taken by the Tribunal for the earlier assessment years.

In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the department. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt. 10.1.2005



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.