| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 367 1994 SLD 367 1994 PTD 1316 (1994) 206 ITR 688 |
Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeals Nos. 2399 and 2400 of 1978 with Civil Appeals Nos. 1370, 2076. decided on 2-02-1994
B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ
Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellants. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him)
Civil Appeals Nos. 2399 and 2400 of 1978 with Civil Appeals Nos. 1370, 2076. decided on 2-02-1994
B.P., JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ
Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran, Advocate for Appellants. B.B. Ahuja, Senior Advocate (Ranbir Chandra and Miss A. Subhashini, Advocates with him)
H.H. LAKSHMI BAI
VS
COMMISSIONER OF WELTH TAX (and other appeals)
Law: Wealth Tax Act, 1957
Section: 5(1A)
Wealth tax--- ----Exemptions---Specific exemptions---Limit of Rs.1,50,000---National defence certificates and defence deposit certificates---Extension of limit---Only if value of such certificates exceeds Rs.1,50,000---"So included", meaning of---Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, Ss.5(1)(xv), (xvi), (1A), prov. The appellant held National Defence Certificates and Defence Deposit Certificates of the value of Rs.70,000 from even prior to March 1, 1970, in addition to other assets specified in section 5(1A) of the Wealth Tax .act, 1957, whose value exceeded Rs.1,50,000. She claimed that, under the proviso to section 5(lA) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, the entire amount of . Rs.70,000 was exempt from wealth tax and the Appellate Tribunal accepted her claim. But the High Court, on a reference, rejected the claim holding that the limit of Rs.1,50,000 provided in the main part of section 5(IA) was to be extended under the proviso thereto only if the value of those assets which fell under clauses (xv) and (xvi) of section 5(1), themselves exceeded Rs.1,50,000 in value. On appeal to the Supreme Court: Held, affirming the decision of the High Court, that the exemption limit of Rs.1,50,000 provided in the main part of section 5(1A) could be extended under the proviso only if the value of the assets falling under clauses (xv) and (xvi) of section 5(1) themselves would exceed the limit of Rs.1,50,000. It is settled law that taxation statutes in particular have to be strictly construed and that there is no equity in a taxing provision. Ayodhyanath (K.S.) v. CWT (1983) 141 ITR 309 (Kar.); Digvijaysinhji (K.S.) v. CWT (1983) 141 ITR (Guj.) and Saroja Ravindran v. CWT (1989) 177 ITR 302 (Mad.) approved. CWT v. H.H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi (1979)116 ITR 135 affirmed. JUDGMENT B.L. HANSARIA, J: --Leave granted in the special leave petitions. These appeals arise out of judgments of the High Court of Kerala rendered in Income Tax Reference Cases Nos. 28 and 37 of 1976 (see (1979) 116 ITR 135); 30, 60 and 63 of 1977 and 141 of 1979 by which the High Court answered the questions referred to it at the behest of the Department under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 (hereinafter "the…
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