TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal exempts New Palace value from net wealth calculation under Wealth-tax Act</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Wealth Tax Versus HH Vijaykuverba.</h3> Commissioner of Wealth Tax Versus HH Vijaykuverba. - [2002] 254 ITR 397, 173 CTR 415, 122 TAXMANN 379 Issues:1. Whether the value of the New Palace at Morvi could be included in the net wealth of the assesseeRs.2. Whether the assessee would be entitled to claim exemption under section 5(1)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in respect of the New Palace at MorviRs.Analysis:1. The case involved the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78, concerning the inclusion of the New Palace at Morvi in the net wealth of the assessee, who was the executor of the estate of the late Ruler of Morvi. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax contended that the value of the palace should be included in the net wealth as the assessee was the legal owner, even though not the Ruler in occupation. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that there was no need to include the palace in the net wealth and that even if included, exemption under section 5(1)(iii) would apply.2. The Revenue argued that the executor, as the legal representative, owned the property until the estate was fully administered, making the assessee liable to show the palace's value in the wealth-tax return. However, the Tribunal found that the property did not belong to the assessee but to the legatee, who was the Ruler in occupation. The Tribunal concluded that the property was no longer part of the estate and exempt from wealth tax.3. The Tribunal referenced relevant legal provisions, including the definition of 'Ruler,' exemption under section 5(1)(iii), and a notification recognizing the palace as the Ruler's official residence. It was established that the property did not belong to the assessee but to the legatee, who had complete ownership. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld that the palace's value should not be included in the net wealth of the assessee.4. The Tribunal highlighted that the litigation could have been avoided if the Commissioner had understood that the palace belonged to the Ruler and not the assessee. Despite the Tribunal's decision being based on undisputed facts, the reference was made. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the value of the New Palace at Morvi should not be included in the net wealth. Consequently, the second question regarding exemption was not addressed, and the reference was disposed of without costs.
TaxTMI 