1985 (5) TMI 94

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat WT Act the ld. counsel submits that wealth tax is exigible only on those person who are either individual, HUF or company by status and that since the assessee which was a members' club did not fall in anyone of the three categories on which wealth-tax is chargeable, the WTO and similarly the AAC of WT were not justified in fastening the charge of wealth-tax upon the assessee. Mr. Khare has taken us through the various decision of the Hon'ble High Courts of Gujarat, Bombay and Calcutta reported in Orient Club vs. WTO (1979) 12 CTR (Guj) 166 : (1980) 123 ITR 395 (Guj), Orient Club vs. WTO (1982) 29 CTR (Bom) 117 : (1982) 136 ITR 697 (Bom) Willingdon Sports Club vs. C. B. Patil, Third Addl. WTO & Anr. (1982) 30 CTR (Bom) 226 : (1982) 137 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le Supreme Court of India in WTO vs. C. K. Mammed Kayi (1981) 21 CTR (SC) 345 : (1981) 129 ITR 307 (SC) is concerned, we find after carefully going through it that what their Lordships held in that case was that Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarwards were liable to assessment in the status of individual as per the provisions of s. 3 of the WT Act, 1957. Mapilla Marumakkathayam Tarward is a sect of Muslim undivided families ofNorth Malabarwho are governed by Marumakkathayam Act (Madras Act 17 of 1939). Their Lordships considered the special attributes of these Muslim undivided families and then held that the term individual in s. 3 of the WT Act would include a group of individuals like a Mapilla Tarward. According to us, this decision would not a....