High CourtsDivision Bench(1990) 06 BOM CK 0069

Mrs. Patsy P. Mistry vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax

Bombay High Court · Decided on 7 June 1990 · Citation: (1991) 191 ITR 452 : (1991) 54 TAXMAN 79

HON’BLE JUDGES
T.D. Sugla, J · Sujata V. Manohar, J
CASE NUMBER
Wealth-tax References No''s. 72 to 74 of 1976

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

11 paragraphs · 303 words
1.

Paper book in each of the above references dispensed with.

2.

The following questions have been referred to us for decision u/s 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 :

3.

Wealth-tax Reference No. 72 of 1976 :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had any interest in the trust corpus on the relevant valuation date ?

(2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether the same was includible in the net wealth of the assessee ?"

4.

Wealth-tax Reference No. 73 of 1976 :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the claim of the applicant that she had no interest in the corpus of the trust on the relevant valuation date and so it was not includible in her net wealth was rightly rejected ?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the applicant had any interest in the corpus of the Bhabha trust on the relevant valuation date ?"

5.

Wealth-tax Reference No. 74 of 1976 :

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee had any interest in the trust corpus on the relevant valuation date ? (2) If the answer to question No. (1) is in the affirmative, whether the same was includible in the ''net wealth'' of the assessee ?" It is agreed between the parties that similar question were answered in favour of the Revenue in Wealth-tax Reference No. 7 of 1971 Shri B K Dubash v. CWT by a Division Bench (Chandurkar J., as he then was,

and Sawant J., as he then was) of this court by its judgment dated answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.