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

..... question has been referred to this court for its opinion : "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 que .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e Wealth-tax Act was prospective with effect from 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... etrospectively applicable with effect from April 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 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X