1085 PLP 629 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus VIDYAVATHI KAPUR
| Citation | 1085 PLP 629 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | Karanataka High Court (India) |
| Bench Members | K. Jagannatha Shetry and S. A. Hakeem, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus VIDYAVATHI KAPUR |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1085 PLP 629 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1085 PLP 629 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karanataka High Court (India) bench comprising: K. Jagannatha Shetry and S. A. Hakeem, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1085 PLP 629 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus VIDYAVATHI KAPUR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- H. Raghavendra Rao for Petitioner. G. Sarangan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Valuation of house Provisions of‑Wealth Tail Rules not procedural in nature and can be given effect to even in respect of pending matters. The Tribunal has held that it is 7 procedural rule and, there fore, it may be given Effect to even in respect of pending matters. There is do dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that rule i B. B. is procedural in nature.
Judgment & Decree
The Tribunal has held that it is 7 procedural rule and, there fore, it may be given Effect to even in respect of pending matters. There is do dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that rule i B. B. is procedural in nature. H. Raghavendra Rao for Petitioner. G. Sarangan for Respondent. JAGANNATHA SHETY, J.‑The Department seeks a reference in respect of the following two questions :‑ "
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in remitting the matter back to the Wealth Tax Officer for a fresh disposal after applying rule I B. B. even though no retrospective effect is given to this rule?
2. Whether the Income‑tax Appellate tribunal is right in law in entertaining the additional ground even though it required fresh facts for decision which bad to be gathered on further enquiries?" The dispute in respect of both the questions relates to the applicability of rule 1 B B: The Tribunal has held that it is a procedural rule and, therefore, it may be given effect to even in respect of pending matters. There is no dispute and indeed it cannot be disputed that' rule 1 B. B. is procedural in nature. That being the position, we fail to see any question of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, since it is always not disput ed that the rules of procedure can be called into aid in respect of pending matters. Civil petitions are, accordingly, rejected. M. B. A. Petition rejected.