9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 6X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment for the assessment year 1975-76 claimed exemption from tax with reference to agricultural lands, residential house and 12-year National Defence Certificates and 10-year Defence Deposit Certificates held by her of the total value of Rs. 50,000. These certificates were purchased by the assessee on March 31, 1964, and March 2, 1968, respectively. The assessee had also claimed exemption from tax to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000 out of the value of shares held by her in various limited companies and deposits in banks. The Wealth-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim for exemption of the value of the 12-year National Defence Certificates and 10-year Defence Deposit Certificates, though admittedly, these were held by the assessee from a date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lth-tax Act, it is expressly provided that nothing contained in this clause shall operate to exclude from the net wealth of the assessee any assets referred to in the clauses mentioned in that section to the extent the value thereof exceeds in the aggregate a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 at the material time. Certificates in item (xvi)are one of the items referred to in section 5(lA). The plain meaning of section 5(lA) of the Act, therefore, is that in respect of the assets which are specified in section 5(1A), exemption from wealth-tax is permissible only to the limit of Rs. 1,50,000 and anything in excess of the value of Rs. 1,50,000 will not be entitled to exemption. There is a proviso to section 5(lA) which reads as follows : "Provided that whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assets in clauses (xv) and (xvi) exceed the amount of Rs. 1,50,000. This is the only construction which is possible of the words of the section. We are supported in this view by the decision of the Kerala High Court in CWT v. H. H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi [1979] 116 ITR 135, and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in K. S. Ayodhyanath v. CWT [1983] 141 ITR 309 and the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Digvijaysinhji (K. S.) v. CWT [1983] 141 ITR 313. In all these decisions, it has been held that the question of raising the limit under the proviso would arise only in cases where the value of the assets referred to in clauses (xv) and (xvi) of section 5(lA) of the Wealth-tax Act, exceeds Rs. 1,50,000 and that where the value of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
