High CourtsDivision Bench(1990) 07 AHC CK 0066

Commissioner of Wealth-tax vs Suresh Kumar Kaushik alias Chakkarpani

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 31 July 1990 · Citation: (1991) 187 ITR 343

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J · R.A. Sharma, J
RESULT
Partly Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Wealth-tax Application No''s. 205 to 210 of 1989

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

6 paragraphs · 329 words

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.—The Department has filed this application u/s 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, requesting this court to direct the petitioner to state four questions :

"1. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was factually and legally correct in directing discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76, when the asset to be valued was agricultural lands ?

2.

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally correct in directing that the discounted value of compensation received by the assessee being taken in relation to all the assessment years including the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 by fixing certain percentage year-wise of compensation which finding is without any reason and relevant material ?

3.

Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was legally wrong in not specifying in its direction any further receipt of enhanced compensation in future, which as per the Supreme Court''s decision in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai and Others Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Pradesh and Others, formed part of compensation awarded by SLAO for valuing the right to receive and whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal''s direction as such is vague ?

4.

Whether the Tribunal was legally correct in giving the aforesaid direction in the assessee''s case where what was received was compensation and not enhanced compensation which was the case considered by the honourable Supreme Court in Mrs. Khorshed Shapoor Chenai and Others Vs. Assistant Controller of Estate Duty, Andhra Pradesh and Others,

2.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we think that questions Nos. 1 and 2 are to be referred. Accordingly, they are directed to be stated. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it is explanatory in nature and need not be referred. Question No. 4 is merely argumentative and is really an aspect of question No. 2 and hence need not be referred. Accordingly, these wealth-tax applications are allowed in part. No costs.