Case LawHigh Court › Commissioner Of Income-Tax v. Libash Set...

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
Facing a similar income-tax issue?
Our CA-led litigation team handles notices, scrutiny, penalties and appeals (CIT(A) & ITAT) end-to-end.
✅ File an income-tax appeal (CIT(A)/ITAT) → 💬 Ask our CA
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.
Contact Careers Media / Press · Privacy Terms Refund Cancellation Cookies Disclaimer
© 2026 EaseValue Advisors LLP · LLPIN ACN-4920 · Jaipur, Rajasthan