7 10 of 1970 respec tively B. Ahuja, Ms. A. Subhashini, K.C. Dua for the Appel lant in C.A. No.
Fareed Jehan Begum his second wife, gifted in their favour certain lands and buildings of a total value of Rs.
1964 should number be included in the net wealth of the Nawab as on the valua tion dated 31.9.1966.
Hashmatunnisa Begum, his first wife, and two other deeds dated 17.8.1962 and 26.4.1962, in favour of Smt.
The particular point for companysideration is whether, on the language of the proviso, the exemption is attracted only to such gifts as were chargeable to tax for any assessment year companymencing after the 31st day of March, 1964, as understood by the Revenue or whether the gifts even made earlier would attract the benefit of the exemption as claimed by the assessees.
In C.W.T. v. Smt.
CA 1118 of 1975 preferred by the Revenue.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.1974 and 11.10.74 of the Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta High Court.
M.G. Kollankulam v. C.I.T., 115 ITR 160 Kerala Malti Harseey v. C.W.T., 12 ITR 676 MP and C.W.T. v. Rasesh N. Mafatlal, 126 ITR 173 Bom several High Courts have companystrued the provision in the manner suggested by the Revenue.
WITH Civil Appeal Nos, 1226 1227 NT of 1975.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATACHALIAH, J Civil Appeal No.
In CA 1118 of 1975 the assessee Smt.
T. Saraswathi Achi v. C.I.T., 104 ITR 185 Mad.
11 IS NT of 1975.
The Nawab under three deeds of gift one dated 25.5.1962, in favour of Smt.
Subba Rao for the Respondent in C.A. No.
1226 27 of 1975.
1118 of 1975.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1226 1227/NT/1975, on a certificate, under Sec.
The opinion of the Calcutta High Court in 1011TR 488, which is representative of the view in favour of Revenue, is under appeal in CA 1226 and 1227 of 1985 and the opinion of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 108 ITR 98 which is favour able to the assessee is under appeal No.
29 1 of the Wealth tax Act, 1957, Act by the assessee raise a question as to the proper companystruction of the proviso to Sec.
C.W.T. v. Hashmatunnisa Begum, 108 ITR 98 AP has taken the opposite view extending a wider benefit of the exemption.
In case referred No.
C.W.T. v. Seth Nand Lal Ganeriwala, 107 ITR 758 Pun.
15 of 1973 and matter No.
Hashmatunnisa Begam, the legal representative of the late Nawab Zabeer Yar Jung Bahadur, claimed in respect of the assessment year 1967 68, that the value of the immovable properties gifted by the late Nawab to his wives before 1.4.
The gifts were chargeable to gift tax and were accordingly assessed to gift tax in the assessment year 1963 64.
1,96,950.
1226 27 of 1975.
B. Ahuja, K.C. Dua and Miss. A. Subhashini for the Re spondent in C.A. Nos.
5 of the Gift tax Act, 1958.
1118 of 1975.
1118/NT/1975, by special leave, by the Commissioner of Wealth tax, Andhra Pradesh, and CA Nos.
Harish N. Salve, Vivek Gambhir and Preveen Kumar for the Appellant in C.A. No.
The companydition for the grant of the exemption under the proviso is that the transfer of the asset is either charge able to gift tax or is number chargeable under sec.
