1986 (3) TMI 35

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nion : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in view of Explanation I to section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, gold ornaments of the assessee of the value of Rs. 4,760 were "jewellery" and were, therefore, not includible in the total wealth of the assessee for the assessment year 1963-64 ?" The aforesaid question arises in the following circumstances : Th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... om April 1, 1972, and the inclusion of the word "jewellery" therein did not affect the assessee and with this observation accepted the appeal. Mr. K. K. Wadhera who appears for the Commissioner of Wealth-tax brought to our notice the fact that the section relating to exemption of certain assets particularly clause (viii) of section 5(1) of the Wealth-tax Act was amended retrospectively with effe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ril 1, 1963, for the relevant assessment year 1963-64, this decision is fully applicable. The same view was followed by this court in the later decision in the case of Rukmani Devi [1983] 142 ITR 41 wherein the Bench of Kapur, J., (as his Lordship then was) and S. Ranganathan, J., took the view that, "ornaments made of gold constitute jewellery and are not exempt from wealth-tax under section 5(1) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X