Case Details

Citation(s)
2005 SLG 1978 2005 SLD 1978 (2005) 272 ITR 177
Madras High Court
TAX CASE Nos. 130, 179 AND 184 TO 186 OF 2000 DECEMBER 1, 2003
R., JAYASIMHA BABU AND S.R. SINGHARAVELU, JJ.

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Commissioner of Wealth Tax

v.

B.R. Theatres & Industrial Concerns (P.) Ltd.

Law:

Section:

Section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, read with section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 - Charge of tax - Companies - Assessment years 1984-85 to 1988-89 - Whether Finance Act, 1988, which amended portions of Finance Act, 1983 with effect from 1-4-1989 and extended exemption from wealth-tax, inter alia, to value of a cinema house and value of stock-in-trade, is not retrospective - Held, yes HELD The amendment effected to section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 by the Finance Act of 1988 with effect from 1-4-1989 is only prospective and not retrospective. [Para 5] The test to be applied for deciding as to whether a later amendment should be given retrospective effect, despite a legislative declaration specifying a prospective date as the date from which the amendment is to come into force is : as to whether without the aid of the subsequent amendment the unamended provision is capable of being so construed as to take within its ambit the subsequent amendment.[Para 8] Applying that test, it is not possible to say that stock-in-trade which is not excluded from wealth-tax in section 40 of the Finance Act, 1983, is nevertheless to be regarded as having been excluded. No part of that section is capable of being given such a construction. [Para 9] Therefore, the Finance Act, 1988, which amended portions of the Finance Act, 1983, and extended the exemption from wealth tax, inter alia, to the value of a cinema house and the value of stock-in-trade, is not retrospective. [Para 13] CASES REFERRED TO CWT v. Varadharaja Theatres (P.) Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 523 (Mad.) [Para 3], CWT v. Prakashi Talkies (P.) Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 121(Kar.) [Para 3], CWT v. Vummidi Bangaru Chetty (P.) Ltd. [2002] 254 ITR 332/[2003] 128 Taxman 112 (Mad.) [Para 4], CWT v.Reliance Motor Co. Ltd. [2003] 260 ITR 571 (Mad.) [Para 4], CIT v. Jodhan Real Estate Development Co. (P.) Ltd. [2003] 259 ITR 79/132 Taxman 507 (Raj.) [Para 6] and Allied Motors (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 224 ITR 677/ 91 Taxman 205 (SC) [Para 10]. T. Ravikumar for the Appellant. Philip George and P. Senthil Kumar for the Respondent. ORDER R. Jayasimha Babu, J. - The question referred is,- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492