1 whether under the three trust deeds referred to therein the assessee got annuities falling within the scope of s. 2 e iv ?
As regards the payments to be made to the assessee under her fathers, settlement deeds, it opined that as the assessee was entitled to withdraw from the trust fund at her own discretion after she attained majority and after she gave birth to one child, one half of the companypus, to that extent companymutation was possible.
Therefore to the extent of one half of the value of the annual payments to be made to her under those deeds, the assessee was number entitled to exemption under s. 2 e iv but she was entitled to exemption as regards the other half.
11,81,670/ .
Sen, S. K. Aiyar and B. D. Sharma, for the appellant in C. A. Nos.
3,88,931/ and shares of some Indian Companies of the aggregate market value of Rs.
Both the assessee as well as the Revenue have appealed against that decision.
1991 and 1992 of 1968 and the respondent in As.
All the terms of the two trust deeds relevant for our present purpose are identical.
Appeals from the judgment and order dated October 9, 1967 of the Gujarat High Court in Wealth Tax Reference No.
2010 and 2011 of 1968 .
Against that order the assessee went up in appeal to the Assistant Appellate Commissioner.
The assessee is one of the beneficiaries named in that deed.
3 of 1964.
8 20 A. Palkhivala and I. N. Shroff, for the respondent in As.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
1991 1992, 2010 and 2011 of 1968.
1991 and 1992 of 1968 and the appellant in As.
25,000/ , deduction given under s. 5 1 xv as it stood at the relevant time.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These appeals by certificate under s. 29 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act arise from a reference under s. 27 1 of the Act to the High Court of Gujarat.
Thereafter the assessee appealed to the Tribunal.
2010 and 2011 of 1968 .
Therein four questions were referred to the High Court for its opinion. ,
That officer agreed with the companyclusions reached by the Wealth Tax Officer and he accordingly dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5,50,325/ upon trust for the benefit of his two sons and his daughter, the assessee.
and 2 whether the value of the jewels owned by the assessee was exempt under s. 5 1 viii in companyputing the net wealth of the assessee ?
By a deed of settlement dated September 7, 1945 the father of the assessee settled certain shares of the Indian Companies of the estimated value of Rs.
By a deed of settlement dated September 30, 1945, the mother in law of the assessee settled upon trust a sum of Rs.
The assessee is an individual and the assessment years with which we are companycerned in these appeals are 1957 58 and 195859, the companyresponding valuation dates being December 31, 1956 and December 31, 1957.
These four questions really gave rise to two questions of law viz.
By another deed of settlement dated October 12, 1945 he settled certain other shares upon trust for the benefit of the assessee and her two brothers.
The Wealth Tax Officer rejected both those companytentions and assessed her after including in her net wealth the value of the benefits receivable by her under the trust deeds in question as well as the value of the jewellery minus Rs.
