TMI Blog1971 (9) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the provisions of section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 - answer of the question is given in favour of the department - - - - - Dated:- 7-9-1971 - Judge(s) : K. S. HEGDE. and A. N. GROVER. JUDGMENT The judgment of the court was delivered by HEGDE J.-- In this appeal by special leave, the only question that we have to consider is whether on the facts and the circumstance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any in respect of the assessment year 1951-52, which had been disputed in appeal and was not paid on the valuation date. Before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal the claim for deduction was scaled down to Rs. 10,31,971. The Tribunal allowed deduction only in respect of the sum of Rs. 37,701 being the last instalment of advance tax demanded under section 18A, which remained outs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Wealth-tax Act. The court answered that question in the affirmative. Therein the court did not go into the scope of sub-clause (iii) of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act as the facts of that case did not come within the scope of that provision. Clause (m) of section 2 reads as follows : " (m) ' net wealth ' means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble by h im, is nevertheless outstanding for a Period of more than twelve months on the valuation date." [Emphasis supplied.] In view of this sub-clause, the assessee was not entitled to claim the deduction in question. The High Court clearly erred in overlooking this clause though the same had been pointedly referred to in the statement of the case. In the result, this appeal is allowed. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
