Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

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.
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 / NCLT & Others
  • 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
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
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
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 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
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    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

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1982 (3) TMI 151 - AT - Wealth-tax

        📋
        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

        Stay application partially allowed for wealth tax demand, penalties upheld for concealment. Specific case circumstances, no precedent set. The stay application by the assessee for a demand of Rs. 2,57,757 for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 was partially allowed. The demand for the ...
                          Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                              Stay application partially allowed for wealth tax demand, penalties upheld for concealment. Specific case circumstances, no precedent set.

                              The stay application by the assessee for a demand of Rs. 2,57,757 for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 was partially allowed. The demand for the assessment year 1975-76 was stayed pending a decision by the third member, while the remaining demand for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 was to be paid by the assessee. The Tribunal upheld penalties imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for concealment of wealth, leading to a reference to the Hon'ble president, ITAT for resolution. The decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and was not to set a precedent.




                              Issues:
                              Stay application for demand amounting to Rs. 2,57,757 for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, settlement with the CIT for the assessment year 1967-68, inclusion of undisclosed wealth in net wealth for assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76, penalties imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for concealment of wealth, consideration of liability admissibility in computing net wealth, difference of opinion between Tribunal members on penalty exigibility, pending miscellaneous application for stay of demand.

                              Analysis:
                              The judgment pertains to a stay application by the assessee requesting the demand of Rs. 2,57,757 for the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76 to be stayed. It was noted that the assessee had already deposited Rs. 50,000, leaving a balance of Rs. 2,07,757. The assessee had previously settled with the CIT for the assessment year 1967-68, surrendering an amount of Rs. 85,919 to be taxed under the Income Tax Act. However, this settlement did not cover the assessment years 1973-74 to 1975-76. The Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) sought to include the undisclosed wealth of Rs. 85,919 in the net wealth of the assessee for these three assessment years, which was disputed by the assessee. The Tribunal, in quantum appeals, allowed the liabilities claimed by the assessee, resulting in negative wealth for two years and negligible wealth for the third year.

                              Another issue addressed in the judgment was the penalties imposed under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth Tax Act for concealment of wealth. The penalties imposed by the WTO were upheld by the CIT (Appeals), and the Tribunal, in the absence of reasoning from quantum appeals, considered the admissibility of liabilities in computing net wealth. The Tribunal upheld the penalties, leading to a miscellaneous application by the assessee requesting a review based on the quantum appeal orders. This application resulted in a difference of opinion between the Tribunal members, leading to a reference to the Hon'ble president, ITAT for resolution.

                              The judgment concluded by partially allowing the stay application. The demand of Rs. 85,919 for the assessment year 1975-76 was stayed pending the decision of the third member, while the remaining demand of Rs. 1,21,838 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 was to be paid by the assessee. Adequate securities were to be furnished for the stayed demand, and failure to pay the remaining demand by a specified date would automatically vacate the stay. The decision to grant the stay was based on the peculiar circumstances of the case, and it was emphasized that this ruling would not set a precedent.
                              Full Summary is available for active users!
                              Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                              Topics

                              ActsIncome Tax
                              No Records Found