2009 (1) TMI 502

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... .   2. The Tribunal has referred the following question.   "(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,28,62,000 representing the value of the assessee's rights in the films produced by him, by holding that, that right was in the nature of copyright exempt under section 5(1)(v) of the Wealth-tax Act ?" &nb .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ey are held by him in his own right as the inven-tor or author of such patent or copyright, as the case may be, and have not been assigned to, or acquired by, him under a contract or by way of inheritance or otherwise."   This position continued till it was deleted fromApril 1, 1993, by the Finance Act, 1992.   5. In the instant case, there is no dispute that Raj Kapoor was the owner o .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.   7. In Wealth-tax Reference No. 84 of 1998 there was a additional question which reads as under.   "Without prejudice to the above, whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) on the above issue, in spite of the fact that these rights were assigned to t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X