2001 PLP 1126 (PTD)
N/A
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1126 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 243 I T R 7 |
| Bench Members | B. N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ |
| Parties | N/A |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1126 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1126 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 243 I T R 7 bench comprising: B. N. Kirpal and S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1126 (PTD) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S‑K. Dwivedi and Ranbir Chandra, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
- Advocate with him) for Respondent.
- Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Rustom B. Hathikhanwala,
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals by Special Leave from the judgment and order, dated March 27, 1998 of the Bombay High Court in W.T.As. Nos. 1, 2 and 114 of 1998). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Company‑‑‑Net wealth‑‑‑Value of stock‑in‑trade whether to be included in net wealth‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.27. Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the stock‑in‑trade does not require to be included in the net wealth for the purpose of determining the wealth tax liability of the assessee -company, was a question of law. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Rustom B. Hathikhanwala,
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Company‑‑‑Net wealth‑‑‑Value of stock‑in‑trade whether to be included in net wealth‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.27. Held, that the question whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the stock‑in‑trade does not require to be included in the net wealth for the purpose of determining the wealth tax liability of the assessee -company, was a question of law. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (S‑K. Dwivedi and Ranbir Chandra, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Raju Ramachandran, Senior Advocate (Rustom B. Hathikhanwala, Advocate with him) for Respondent. After hearing learned senior counsel for the parties, in our opinion a question of law does arise. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the value of the stock‑in -trade does not require to be included in the net wealth for the purpose of determining the wealth tax liability of the assessee -company?" The appeals stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms. M.B.A./429/FC Order accordingly.