| Case ID |
2e6b54f3-f4df-4341-a727-57f06d4b87ac |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Wealth Tax Reference No. 347 of 1972 |
| Decision Date |
Apr 11, 1977 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The court held that the properties bearing Municipal door Nos. 92 and 92A, Darbhanga Castle, constituted one house for the purposes of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, and were eligible for exemption under Section 5(1)(iv). However, the property at Municipal door No. 17/33, Mahatma Gandhi Marg, was deemed a separate entity and was not entitled to the same exemption. The ruling emphasized that although the Hindu undivided family occupied separate units, the connected nature of the properties allowed them to be treated as a single house, thus qualifying for the exemption. The court reiterated that separate municipal numbers do not automatically disqualify properties from being considered a single house, especially when they share common boundaries and structural unity. |
| Summary |
In the case of Wealth Tax Reference No. 347 of 1972, the High Court of Lucknow examined the eligibility for wealth tax exemption under the Wealth Tax Act, 1957. The primary issue was whether two properties, bearing Municipal door Nos. 92 and 92A, could be regarded as one house for exemption purposes, despite being occupied by different members of a Hindu undivided family. The judgment clarified that properties can be considered a single house if they are contiguous and exhibit unity of structure, even if they bear different municipal numbers. The court concluded that while the properties at Darbhanga Castle could be treated as one house, the property at Mahatma Gandhi Marg did not meet the criteria for exemption as it was situated in a different locality. This case highlights the interpretation of 'house' under the Wealth Tax Act and the importance of structural unity in determining tax exemptions for residential properties. |
| Court |
High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
D. M. Chandrashekhar,
R. M. Sahi
|
| Lawyers |
R. K. Gulati,
Deokinandan,
Ashok Gupta
|
| Petitioners |
Shiv Narain Chaudhari
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Lucknow
|
| Citations |
1979 SLD 26 = (1979) 40 TAX 44
|
| Other Citations |
Annicola Investments Ltd., v. Minister of Housing & Local Government [1965] 3 All ER 850,
Benabo v. Mayor Alderman and Burgesses of the Borough of Woodgreen [1945] 2 All ER 162,
Kimber v. Admans [1900] I Ch D 412,
Okereke v. Borough of Brent [1966] 2 WLR 169
|
| Laws Involved |
Wealth Tax Act, 1957
|
| Sections |
5,
5(1)(iv)
|