REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, WEST BENGAL II Appellant

V/S

U.C.MAHATAB Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

WEBB V. STENTON [REFERRED TO]
V. CHANCLRAMANI PATTANIIIHA DEVI V. COMNIR. OF WEALTH TAX,A.P. [REFERRED TO]
CANADIAN EAGLE OIL CO.,LTD. V. THE KING [REFERRED TO]
CAPE BRANDV SYNDICATE V. INLAND REVENUE COMMRS. [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V. CROSSMAN [REFERRED TO]
KHANTAMAYEE DEBYA V. SMT. RUKMINI DEBY [REFERRED TO]
MAORI TRUSTEE V. MINISTRY OF WORKS [REFERRED TO]
DAWSON V. PRESTON (LAW SOCIETY,GARNISHEES) [REFERRED TO]
KESORAM COTTON MILLS LTD. V. COMMR. OF WEALTH TAX,CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
E D SASSOON AND COMPANYMPANY LIMITED VS. COMMR OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY [REFERRED TO]
A V FERNANDEZ VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U P LUCKNOW VS. KUNWAR TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VADREVU VENKAPPA RAO VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KHALEQUE VS. MEDASWAR HOSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
MADHYA PRADESH STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS. PURSHOTTAM N AMERSEY [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJ KUMAR KAMAL SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI KANT JHA VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA VS. KAMAKHAYA NARAYAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BANCHHARAM MAJUMDAR VS. ADYANATH BHATTACHARJEE [REFERRED TO]
VYRICHERLA NARAYANA GAJAPATIRAJU VS. REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, VIZAGAPATAM [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference under the Wealth Tax Act raises the following question for answer : "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee had no right on the relevant valuation dates to receive any compensation for the acquisition of his estate from the Government of West Bengal".

(2.) Although the question is framed in that way the real issue by refraining the question is :

(3.) The logic of the Tribunal is that the intermediary is not entitled to receive any compensation until the compensation assessment roll has been prepared and finally published under Section 21 of the Act although he may be allowed ad interim payment from time to time against the compensation receivable by him after the final publication of the compensation roll. Therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion. (1) that the Wealth Tax Officer was wrong in assuming that the assessee had a right to receive compensation upon the claim preferred by him in Form 3A under Rule 10 (3) of that Act and (2) the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was wrong in holding that the assessee had an actionable claim which had a hypothetical market value, on the valuation date.

Click here to view full judgment.

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX WEST BENGAL II Vs. U C MAHATAB

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address