Case LawHigh Court › Wealth Tax Officer v. G. Chandraiah, J

Wealth Tax Officer v. G. Chandraiah, J

High Court 11 Feb 2014 In favour of: Unclear
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Wealth Tax Officer v. G. Chandraiah, J
Date of order
11 Feb 2014
Assessment year(s)
Outcome
Other

The order — as passed by the High Court

Case summary

In Wealth Tax Officer v. G. Chandraiah, J, the High Court (2014) decided the matter.

Decision: In so faras question no.3 is concerned, we decline to answer the same.The reference case is accordingly disposed of.

Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
HON’BLESRIJUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLESRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM RC No.132 OF 1999 JUDGMENT :: ( per Hon’ble Sri Justice Challa Kodanda Ram ) At the instance of the Revenue, below mentionedquestions of law have been referred to the opinion of this Courtwhich arise from the order of the Tribunal in RANo.114/Hyd/1998 in WTA No.215/Hyd/1995 & RANo.115/Hyd/1998 in WTA No.216/Hyd/1995 for the assessment year 1988-89. “1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case,the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the orderof the CIT(A) in so far as fixing the value of the jewellery forming part ofthe Trust at 50% of the value fixed by the valuer on the allegedgrounds of uncertainties, hazards and risks of litigation etc. ?” “2. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that thealleged uncertainties, hazards, risks of litigation and burden of taxliability etc., pleaded by the assessee constituted factors for reductionof valuation upto 50 % of the valuation fixed by the approved valuer ?” “3.Whether the Appellate Tribunal is justified in holding that theWealth-tax Officer would be entitled to make further adjustments to thevaluation as determined by the valuation officer under Section 16A (5)of the Wealth tax Act?” 2. The Tribunal followed its earlier decision reported in WEALTH TAX OFFICER vs. TRUSTEES OF HEH THENIZAM’S (1990 35 ITD 402). In a batch of cases, identicalquestions as the one raised in this reference case wereconsidered by this Court in RC 172 of 1996. The questions were answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. In view of the same, the questions 1 and 2 raised in this reference case are answered in favour of assessee. In so faras question no.3 is concerned, we decline to answer the same.The reference case is accordingly disposed of. Miscellaneouspetitions, if any, pending in this reference case shall also standdisposed of. A copy of the order dated 10-12-2013 in RCNo.172 of 1996 be tagged on with this order. There shall be noorder as to costs. _______________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J ____________________________ CHALLA KODANDA RAM,J Dated: 11-02-2014 NRG HON’BLESRIJUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH & HON’BLESRIJUSTICE CHALLA KODANDA RAM RC No.132 OF 1999 ( per CKR,J ) Dated: 11-02-2014NRG
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