Law: Wealth Tax Act, (XV of 1963)

Section: 5(xiv),Second Schedule,Part-I,C1.12(1)

(a) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)--- ----Ss. 5(xiv) & Second Schedule, Part-I, C1.12(1)---Exemption in respect of certain assets---Provision of S.5, Wealth Tax Act, 1963 which continued to be applicable law till the valuation date 30-6-1996 but effective from 1-7-1996, S.5, was substituted through Finance Act, 1996, therefore for the wealth tax returns of 1996-1997, the valuation date was 30-6-1996 as such original and the un-substituted provision of S.5 applied to the returns of 30-6-1996 and under the proviso to CI. (xiv) thereof, option of exemption of one residential house could only be exercised by either of the Spouses and not by both---Appellate Tribunal, therefore, validly applied the proviso to Cl. (xiv) of original section 5 of the Act to returns for the relevant year and denied the claimed exemption of another house to the assessee whose husband had already been allowed exemption of a residential house. (b) Wealth Tax Act (XV of 1963)--- ----Second Sched., Part I, Cl. (12)(1), Ss.5 & 27---S.R.O. No.595(I)/96 dated 9-7-1996---Exemption in respect of certain assets---S.R.O. 595(I)/96 dated 9-7-1996 lacked the status of law as the same was not placed by the Federal Government for the approval of National Assembly as was mandated in S.5(2), Wealth Tax Act, 1963 and effect thereof was that Cl. (12) of Second Schedule Part I of the Act as introduced on 9-7-1996 through S.R.O. 595(1)/96 obliterated and dissolved into meaningless---Clause (12)(1) and its proviso thus rendered ineffective, would be considered not to have substituted Clause (12) of the Second Schedule of the Act---Consequently Clause (12) as introduced through Finance Act, 1996 continued to be the law applicable as if the same had never been amended or substituted---Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, could not have applied the provisions introduced by S.R.O. 595(I)/96 dated 9-7-1996 to decide assessee's claim to the exemption---Claim of the assessee to the exemption of a residential house for the relevant year would need to be re-decided---High Court, however, observed and held that the matters which had finalized and no appeals were pending thereagainst, could not be reopened being…

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