High CourtsFull Bench(2001) 07 RAJ CK 0002

Commissioner of Income Tax vs H.H. Maharaja Shri Gaj Singh Ji

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 2 July 2001 · Citation: (2001) 119 TAXMAN 636

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajesh Balia, J · H.R. Panwar, J
CASE NUMBER
IT Reference No. 131 of 1998 2 July 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 301 words

This is an application u/s 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for directing the Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, to state the case and refer the following question:

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in adopting the A.L.V. of Jodhpur Fort at Rs. 100 p.a. whereas the value of the said property is declared and assessed at a much higher figure under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 particularly when the assessee is Managing Trustee of the trust to whom it has been leased out and is deriving substantial benefits by way of maintenance of fort through commercial activities of the Trust ?"

This question is said to be a question of law arising out of its order dated 12-9-1997 passed in IT Appeal No. 59 (Jp) of 1992 for the assessment year 1989-90. The application u/s 256(1) for making a reference was rejected by the Tribunal on 5-3-1998.

2.

It has been contended by the learned counsel that in respect of the very same the assessee and very same property, the like question has been raised in an application u/s 256(2) for an earlier assessment year in IT Case No. 154 of 1990. That application has been rejected by the Division Bench of this court on 20-12-1990 and review application against that which was D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Review Petition No. 9 of 1991 was also rejected by the court on 5-3-1991 and thereafter, the said decision was followed by another Division Bench dismissing the application u/s 256(2), namely, D.B. Income Tax Reference No. 67 of 1998 by its order dated 5-11-1999.

3.

In view of the aforesaid, this petition is required to be dismissed. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.