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>Section 16(1) intimations under Wealth Tax Act constitute orders subject to revision under Section 25</h1> <h3>The Commissioner And Anr., Commissioner, Of Wealth Tax And Anr Versus The Lake Palace Hotels And Motels Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner And Anr., Commissioner, Of Wealth Tax And Anr Versus The Lake Palace Hotels And Motels Ltd. - TMI Issues involved: The issue involved in this case was the maintainability of revision petitions under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, challenging the order of the Commissioner, Wealth Tax, Udaipur rejecting the revision petition under Section 25 for multiple Assessment Years.Summary:Issue 1: Maintainability of Revision Petitions under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax ActThe respondent-petitioner filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Commissioner, Wealth Tax, Udaipur rejecting the revision petition under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act for various Assessment Years. The Commissioner held that revisions under Section 25 against the intimation issued under Section 16(1) of the Act were not maintainable. The main issue before the court was to determine the maintainability of such revision petitions.The respondent's counsel cited a similar provision in the Income Tax Act, referring to a case decided by the Bombay High Court. The court examined the provisions of Section 143 of the Income Tax Act and concluded that the intimation sent by the Assessing Officer should be understood as having the force of an order on self-assessment. The court emphasized that the intimation under Section 143(1) is in the nature of an order passed under the Act, allowing for jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act. The court also noted that the Bombay High Court's decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, reinforcing the validity of considering intimation as an order.The court found that the intimation order was passed under Section 16(1), and the revisionary powers under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act were applicable. The court held that the analogy from the Income Tax Act supported the view that sending the intimation was a decision in itself, akin to passing an order. Therefore, the revisionary authority had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter under the Act of 1957. Based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court and considering the arguments presented, the court dismissed the special appeals, finding no reason to interfere.In conclusion, the court upheld the maintainability of revision petitions under Section 25 of the Wealth Tax Act, following the interpretation of the Income Tax Act and the precedent set by the Bombay High Court.
TaxTMI 