9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the case and refer the following questions as questions of law to this Court for opinion : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the orders of the WTO passed for the asst. yrs. 1976-77 to 1978-79 were bad in law for assessing the beneficiary's life interest in the jewellery mentioned in the first schedule of the trust d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid order of the CWT(A). The Tribunal, following the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in RC No. 67 of 1969 dt. 5th Nov., 1971, held that the right to wear jewellery, however widely the expression might be interpreted, could not be considered to be "property" for the purpose of the wealth-tax and, thus dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on 30th Nov., 1989. The application of the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by learned junior standing counsel for the Revenue in RC No. 41 of 1989, dt. 23rd Feb., 1995. It relates to the interpretation of the trust deed executed by H.E.H. the Nizam on 21st March, 1963, viz., Sahebzadi Anwar Begum Trust. The present case arises out of the trust known as "the Nizam's Wedding Gifts Trust for Two Granddaughters" dt. 4th Sept., 1951. A Division Bench of this Court, of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... however, widely the expression may be interpreted. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that neither the interest of the Sahebzadi in the jewellery fund nor her interest in the shares fund is an asset within the meaning of the WT Act'. We are in entire agreement with the observations of the Bench. In view of the said observation, the point is squarely covered by a binding judgment of this Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
