| Case ID |
439b2244-f99f-445a-a0f3-2493b6364a34 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Civil Appeals Nos.6367 and 6368 of 1994 with Civil |
| Decision Date |
Sep 22, 1994 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Supreme Court of India ruled that Rule 1-BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957 is procedural in nature and applies to all pending proceedings. The court determined that the rule provides a method of valuation for houses primarily used for residential purposes, aimed at achieving uniformity in property valuation. The court emphasized that procedural laws do not create or alter substantive rights and that no party has a vested right in procedural matters. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the decisions of the lower courts that applied Rule 1-BB retroactively to pending cases. |
| Summary |
The case addresses the valuation of residential properties under the Wealth Tax Act, focusing on Rule 1-BB of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957. This rule provides a standardized method for assessing the value of houses used mainly for residential purposes. The Supreme Court of India concluded that the rule is procedural and applicable to ongoing proceedings, thereby emphasizing that changes in procedural law do not affect substantive rights. The decision reinforces the principle that valuation methods should promote consistency and fairness in tax assessments. This case is significant for its implications on wealth tax assessments and property valuation standards, making it a key reference in tax law. It highlights the importance of procedural clarity in legal frameworks governing taxation and property rights. Keywords such as wealth tax, property valuation, procedural law, and tax assessments are essential for understanding the implications of this ruling and are expected to rank well in legal discussions. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
M.N. Venkatachalliah, C.J.I,
S.C. Agrawal, J
|
| Lawyers |
J. Ramamurthi,
B.B. Ahuja,
Manoj Arora,
S. Rajappa,
Ranbir Chandra,
D.S. Mehara,
Parameswaran,
B.K. Prasad,
Miss A. Subhashini,
Raja Ram Agrawal,
G. Sarangan,
Harish N. Salve,
Praveen Kumar,
Virender Kaushal,
Tripurari Ray,
Vineet Kumar,
Yashank Adhyaru,
A.P. Medh,
Miss Deepa Dixit,
K.J. John
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX
|
| Respondents |
SHARVAN KUMAR SWARUP & SONS
|
| Citations |
1996 SLD 140,
1996 PTD 50,
(1994) 210 ITR 886
|
| Other Citations |
CWT v. Kasturbhai Mayabhai (1987) 164 ITR 107,
CWT v. Lachmandas Bhatia (1987) 163 ITR 586,
CWT v. Niranjan Narottam (1988) 173 ITR 693,
CWT w O.P. Tandon (1992) 195 ITR 688,
CWT v. Vidyavathi Kapur (1984) 150 ITR 319,
Dilip Kumar Mitra v. CWT (1993) 200 ITR 336,
Manjushree Biswas v. CWT (1988) 171 ITR 348,
Associated Cement Co. Ltd. v. CTO (1981) 48 STC 466,
Cocker-line (W.H.) and Co. v. IRC (1930) 16 TC 1,
Colonial Sugar Refining Co. Ltd. v. Irving (1905) AC 369,
Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. ITC (1927) AIR 1927 PC 242,
Garikapati Veeraya v. N. Subbiah Choudhry (1957) SCR 488,
Izhar Ahmad Khan v. Union of India (1962) AIR 1962 SC 1052,
Jose Da Costa v. Bascora Sadashiva Sinai Narcornin (1976) 2 SCC 917,
Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CWT (1966) 59 ITR 767,
Maxwell v. Murphy (1957) 96 CLR 261,
Murarilal Mahabir Prasad v. B.R. Vad (1976) 37 STC 77
|
| Laws Involved |
Wealth Tax Rules, 1957
|
| Sections |
3
|