1980 (1) TMI 7

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... J.-For the year 1965-66, the petitioner filed return under the W.T. Act, 1957. By an assessment order dated February 26, 1971, the assessee was assessed on a total wealth of Rs. 4,62,401. In the return, the petitioner had indicated in the column meant for jewellery a sum of Rs. 1,21,835. Since the Supreme Court had, in CWT v. Arundhati Balkrishna [1970] 77 ITR 505, held that jewellery was liable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der art. 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there were differences of opinion among various High Courts on the question whether the definition of the term " Jewellery ", given in the Explanation added to s. 5(1)(viii), would apply to the assessment year 1965-66, a period prior to its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1971, the question was deb....