Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.W.T. versus SMT. PREM LATA KANODIA

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.W.T. v. Smt. Prem Lata Kanodia - WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No. 201 of 1992 [2005] RD-AH 1943 (16 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.37

W.T.R. No. 201 of 1992

The Commisisoner of Wealth-tax,  Kanpur vs. Smt. Premlata Kanodia, Kanpur.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad  has referred the following questions 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 I.T.A.T. was correct in law in holding that the question of valuation was not referred to the proper valuer and directing the W.T.O. to refer the valuation again to the competent valuer, to determine the assessee's share of interest in the firm and not to go by valuation made by the Valuation Officer who had valued the assets of the firm?"

The Reference relates to the Assessment Years 1985-86 and 1986-87

We have heard Sri A.N.Mahajan, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. Sri S.K.Garg has filed his appearance on behalf of the assessee.

It is agreed between the parties that the identical issue came up for consideration before this Court in Wealth Tax Reference No. 158 of 1987 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Ram Saran Kejriwal) decided on 9th November, 2004 and this Court has returned the question unanswered on the ground that the Tribunal had not decided the question on merits and the matter had been remanded by the Tribunal.

Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of this Court we return the question unanswered. However, the observation made in the aforesaid judgment will also operate in the present case.

16.8.05

MZ.


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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