Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI OCR

Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page

Try Now
×

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1995 (7) TMI 125

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad purchased the following properties for consideration as mentioned against each of them from H.H. Shri Gaj Singh :--- Jawahar Khana                                 Rs. 48,000 Saloon House                                 Rs.1,57,000 Lake House, Mt. Abu                           Rs. 46,000 Land near Stadium Jodhpur                     Rs. 77,000 Land to the East & West of Circuit House      Rs. 80,000 3. The assessee also constructed a cinema house known as 'Darpan Cinema' on the land near Stadium at a cost of Rs. 50.67 lakhs, which started functioning from June 1985. The sale consideration for the properties pu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., held that the amendment brought about by the Finance Act, 1988 was effective from 1-4-1989 and hence the assessee could not claim any exemption for the assessment years under consideration. The learned CWT(A) also decided on the valuation of the properties involved, and after his combined order dated 28-2-1991 for all the five years, the comparative position of valuation in respect of each property stood as follows :--   (1) JAWAHARKHAN: ---------------------------------------------------------   Asst.      Value         Value as per        Value as   Year      Returned     Assessing Officer    per CWT(A)               Rs.               Rs.               Rs. ---------------------------------------------------------    1           2 &nbs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....       4,95,000           4,95,000 1988-89    4,13,000       5,50,000           5,50,000 (4) LAND NEAR STADIUM (4,500 SQ. MTS.) : -------------------------------------------------------------------- Asst    Value Returned      Value as per A.O.    Value as per CWT(A) year    ---------------     -----------------    -------------------          Land     Cinema     Land    Cinema       Land     Cinema                   Constn.            Constn.               Constn.           Rs.    &....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....;      1,17,80,200 ]       Set aside 1987-88    2,94,505          1,47,25,250 ] 1988-89    2,94,505          1,76,70,300 ] ------------------------------------------------------------- 8. As the assessee was aggrieved by the order of the learned CWT(A) on the ground that he denied retrospective operation of the amendment made by Finance Act, 1988, as also on the ground that he sustained the enhancement in the values of certain properties, it gave rise to appeals before us which are numbered as WTA Nos. 138 to 142/JP/91 for the five years under consideration. Similarly, as the learned CWT(A) had considerably reduced the valuation of Jawaharkhan Property, the department came up in appeals before us only on that ground for all the five years which are numbered as WTA Nos. 172 to 176/JP/91. Since the learned CWT(A) had set aside the issue relating to the valuation of two properties for fresh consideration, the Assessing Officer re-assessed the same and was confirmed by the learned CWT(A). The assessee, therefo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the contentions of Shri Pandey. We are not dealing with a procedural provision which can have retrospective operation. Whether a particular asset attracts wealth-tax or not is a substantive provision. It cannot be disputed that before the amendment, stock-in-trade was not out of the purview of wealth-tax. It is a different matter that it may have caused hardship to the assessee. No sooner the Legislature realised that the provision is causing unintended hardship, it removed it by the amendment by specifically providing that the hardship will no longer remain from 1-4-1989. 12. The distinction between substantive law and procedural law has been brought out very clearly in the sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary at Page 1203 as follows :--- "As a general rule laws which fix duties, establish rights and responsibilities among and for persons, natural or otherwise, are 'substantive laws' in character, while those which merely prescribe the manner in which such rights and responsibilities may be exercised and enforced in a court are 'Procedural Laws'". 13. Whether a particular asset is to be charged with wealth-tax or not, is a part of the process which defines the rights and res....