PTD 2002

2002 PLP 526 (PTD)

GANGABAI CHARITIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Jurisdiction / Court
250 I T R 666
Decided Date
Civil Appeals Nos. 5890 to 5895 of 1998 with Civil Appeals Nos. 1495 and 1496 of 2000, decided on 22nd February, 2001.
Honorable Judges
S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 526 (PTD)
Forum / Court 250 I T R 666
Bench Members S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ
Parties GANGABAI CHARITIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
Primary Law Wealth tax
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 526 (PTD)?

This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 526 (PTD)?

The case was heard and decided by the 250 I T R 666 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 526 (PTD) (GANGABAI CHARITIES Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Wealth tax

Representation

  • G. Umapathy and Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates for Appellant.
  • B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Ajay Sharma, B.V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushama Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

(Civil Appeals Nos.5890 to 5895 of 1998 are by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 17, 1998 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos. 1936 and 1937 of 1984 and 566 and 567 of 1991). (Civil Appeals Nos. 1495 and 1496 of 2000 are by special leave from the judgments and orders, dated March 4, 1998 . and April 20, 1998, of the Madras High Court respectively in Tax Case No.463 of 1986 and Tax Case No. 558 of 1988).

Exemption

Charitable trust

Purpose not confined to religious or chartiable use

Property could be used for social, cultural and allied purposes at sole discretion of trustee

Trust not entitled to exemption-- Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.5(1)(i). Under a trust deed the purposes for which the trust property could be put to were not confined to religious or charitable use: the property could be used for social, cultural and other allied purposes at the sole discretion of the trustee. The High Court held that the trust was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (see (1999) 236 ITR 735). The assessee preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals holding that the judgments and orders of the High Court were correct. CWT v. Gangabai Charities (1999) 236 ITR 735 affirmed.

Judgment & Decree

(Civil Appeals Nos.5890 to 5895 of 1998 are by special leave from the judgment and order, dated February 17, 1998 of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos. 1936 and 1937 of 1984 and 566 and 567 of 1991). (Civil Appeals Nos. 1495 and 1496 of 2000 are by special leave from the judgments and orders, dated March 4, 1998 . and April 20, 1998, of the Madras High Court respectively in Tax Case No.463 of 1986 and Tax Case No. 558 of 1988).

Exemption

Charitable trust

Purpose not confined to religious or chartiable use

Property could be used for social, cultural and allied purposes at sole discretion of trustee

Trust not entitled to exemption-- Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, S.5(1)(i). Under a trust deed the purposes for which the trust property could be put to were not confined to religious or charitable use: the property could be used for social, cultural and other allied purposes at the sole discretion of the trustee. The High Court held that the trust was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (see (1999) 236 ITR 735). The assessee preferred appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals holding that the judgments and orders of the High Court were correct. CWT v. Gangabai Charities (1999) 236 ITR 735 affirmed. G. Umapathy and Rakesh K. Sharma, Advocates for Appellant. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Ajay Sharma, B.V. Balram Das and Ms. Sushama Suri, Advocates with him) for Respondent. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, read the judgments and orders under appeal as also the authorities cited by him. We are of the view that the judgments and orders under appeal are correct and: no inference therewith is required. The civil appeals are dismissed with costs. M.B.A./1058/FC Appeals dismissed.