Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 1108 1985 SLD 1108 (1985) 153 ITR 172
Madras High Court
WRIT PETITION Nos. 4091, 4124 TO 4127 AND 4129 OF 1978JANUARY 27, 1984
G. RAMANUJAM AND S. RATNAM, JJ.

Coimbatore Clubv.Wealth Tax Officer

Law:

Section:

Section 3 of the wealth-tax act, 1957-Individual -Assessability of- Whether expression 'individual' occurring in section 3 would take in a plurality of individuals, which in turn would include body or group of individuals forming single collective unit, knit together by ties of common aims and joint interest and not any profit motive but owning property-Held, yes-Whether, therefore, an unincorporated members' club can be included within ambit of expression 'individual' and is, therefore, within purview of charging provisions of wealth-tax act-held, yes Words and phrases--ndividual ' occurring in section 3 of the wealth-tax act, 1957 Facts The petitioner was an unincorporated members' club, functioning under the rules and bye-laws framed by its members, and its affairs were being run by an elected managing committee. The properties of the club were owned by its members and the admission to the club was restricted and the enjoyment of the benefits and amenities provided by the club was confined to its members only. The club was not a profit making organisation or association as it had no profit motive. Its income from house property and interest income had been assessed up to 1966-67 under the Income-tax Act, treating it as an 'AOP'. For the assessment years 1972-73 to 1976-77, the WTO issued notices under section 17 calling upon the club to deliver a return of its net wealth for the aforesaid years. The petitioner replied that on the abolition of wealth-tax on companies from the assessment years 1960-61 onwards, wealth-tax was chargeable only on individuals and HUF, and as the club did not fall within these categories of assessable units or entities, it was not liable to be assessed to wealth-tax. The club also put forward the objection that it could not be included within the expression 'individual' occurring in section 3 as it had been assessed for the purposes of income-tax as an AOP and the property of the club was also not held by a BOI. The WTO, however, rejected the contention and proceeded to issue notices under section 16(2). On writ, the petitioner sought to have the impugned notices quashed on the ground that it was not a taxable entity under section…
🔒
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