Just a moment...

Top
Help
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Assessee-company not exempt from wealth-tax due to ceasing insurer status post-nationalization.</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, Bombay City III Versus Oriental Government Security Life Assurance Co. Limited</h3> The court held that the assessee-company was not immune from wealth-tax liability for the assessment year 1957-58 under Section 45(b) of the Wealth-tax ... Exemptions, Insurer, Wealth Tax Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 45(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.2. Definition and interpretation of 'insurer' within the meaning of the Insurance Act, 1938.3. Relevance of the valuation date for determining wealth-tax liability.4. Whether the assessee-company continued to carry on the business of life insurance after nationalization.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Applicability of Section 45(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957:The assessee, a life insurance company, claimed exemption from wealth-tax under Section 45(b) of the Wealth-tax Act, which states, 'The provisions of this Act shall not apply to... (b) an insurer within the meaning of the Insurance Act, 1938.' The Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the company retained its status as an insurer until 1st April 1957, thus making it immune from wealth-tax liability for the assessment year 1957-58. However, the revenue argued that by 31st December 1956, the relevant valuation date, the assessee was no longer an insurer due to the statutory prohibition on carrying on life insurance business from 1st September 1956.2. Definition and Interpretation of 'Insurer' within the Meaning of the Insurance Act, 1938:The court examined the definition of 'insurer' under Section 2(9) of the Insurance Act, 1938, which includes individuals or bodies corporate carrying on insurance business. The court noted that the definition necessitates carrying on the business of insurance, which involves entering into insurance contracts. The court further analyzed various provisions of the Insurance Act, including Sections 3(4), 3(5B), and 2D, to determine whether an entity that has ceased its insurance business could still be considered an insurer. The court concluded that the term 'insurer' in Section 45(b) of the Wealth-tax Act must be interpreted in the context of the Insurance Act, requiring the entity to actively carry on insurance business and hold a valid registration certificate.3. Relevance of the Valuation Date for Determining Wealth-tax Liability:The court emphasized the importance of the valuation date, defined in Section 2(q) of the Wealth-tax Act, as the last day of the previous year for which an assessment is to be made. For the assessment year 1957-58, the relevant valuation date was 31st December 1956. The court stated that the applicability of the Wealth-tax Act, including exemptions under Section 45(b), must be determined with reference to the valuation date. Since the assessee was not an insurer on the valuation date due to the cessation of its insurance business, it was not entitled to the exemption under Section 45(b).4. Whether the Assessee-Company Continued to Carry on the Business of Life Insurance after Nationalization:The court rejected the argument that the assessee continued to carry on the business of life insurance after the nationalization and statutory prohibition on 1st September 1956. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Lahore Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which held that a business is not deemed to continue merely because outstanding liabilities are being collected. The court also distinguished the case from South Behar Railway Co. v. IRC, where the business was considered ongoing due to the continuous receipt of annuities. The court concluded that the assessee was not carrying on the business of life insurance on the valuation date and thus was not an insurer within the meaning of the Insurance Act.Conclusion:The court answered the referred question in the negative, holding that the assessee-company was not immune from wealth-tax liability for the assessment year 1957-58 under Section 45(b) of the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found