9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Exemption of National Defence Certificates and Defence Deposit Certificates under Wealth-tax Act, 1957. Analysis: The judgment pertains to the exemption claim made by an assessee regarding 12-year National Defence Certificates and 10-year Defence Deposit Certificates under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The assessee claimed exemption for these certificates along with other assets in her wealth-tax assessment for the year 1975-76. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the exemption claim for the certificates, which were held prior to March 1, 1970. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed a partial exemption of Rs. 50,000 under the proviso to section 5(1A) of the Act. The Tribunal overturned this decision, stating that the entire amount could only be exempted if certain conditions were met. The court was tasked with determining whether the certificates were entitled to exemption under the Act. The court analyzed the relevant provisions of section 5(1A) of the Wealth-tax Act, particularly focusing on item (xvi) which covered the certificates in question. It was noted that the section allowed exemption up to Rs. 1,50,000 for assets falling under specified categories. The proviso to section 5(1A) addressed situations where the value of assets exceeded the limit and provided for raising the exemption limit accordingly. The court emphasized that the proviso applied only when the value of assets in clauses (xv) and (xvi) exceeded Rs. 1,50,000. The court rejected the assessee's argument that each asset in clause (xvi) was independently entitled to exemption, highlighting that the proviso clearly referred to the combined value of assets in the specified clauses. The court relied on previous decisions by the Kerala High Court, Karnataka High Court, and Gujarat High Court to support its interpretation of the proviso to section 5(1A). These decisions established that the limit could only be raised under the proviso if the total value of assets in clauses (xv) and (xvi) exceeded Rs. 1,50,000. Therefore, the court concluded that the certificates in question were not entitled to exemption beyond the specified limit. The judgment favored the Revenue, requiring the assessee to pay the costs and counsel's fee.
|
