Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Libash Settlement
High Court
29 Jan 1998 In favour of: Revenue
Forum / Bench
High Court · gujarathc
Parties
Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Libash Settlement
Date of order
29 Jan 1998
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Allowed
The order — as passed by the High Court
Case summary
In Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Libash Settlement, the High Court (1998) allowed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the Revenue.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 86 of 1995
For Approval and Signature:
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and
MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
============================================================
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge?
--------------------------------------------------------------
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Versus
LIBASH SETTLEMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
B.B.NAYAK with MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner
Respondent served
--------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and
�� MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE
Date of decision: 29/01/98
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per R.K.Abichandani,J.)
�The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad has
referred for the opinion of this Court the following
"Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law
and on facts in holding that the assessee's
wealth is below taxable limit and hence it should
be taxed at a normal rate as against the maximum
marginal rate?"
�A similar question has been answered by us today
in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93. Since the facts are
similar and the question involved almost identical, we do not find it necessary to reproduce the facts of this case. For the reasons given by us in our judgement and order delivered in Wealth Tax Reference No. 43/93 today, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as
to costs.
����----
*/Mohandas
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.