Mobile View
Main Search Forums Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 6 docs - [View All]
The Wealth- Tax Act, 1957
Section 2(m) in The Wealth- Tax Act, 1957
The Payment Of Bonus Act, 1965
Mental Box Co. Of India Ltd vs Their Workmen on 20 August, 1968
Standard Mills Co. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax, ... on 6 October, 1966
Citedby 9 docs - [View All]
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs D.V. Bapat, Income-Tax Officer, ... on 26 February, 1975
Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, ... vs Her Highness Vijayaba, Dowger ... on 9 March, 1979
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, ... vs Mafatlal Chandulal & Co. Ltd And ... on 28 June, 1976
Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax vs K. Gopinathan Nair on 12 December, 1975
P.N. Dhoot Investment Company ... vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 26 July, 1991

Loading...
User Queries
Supreme Court of India
Bombay Dyeing And Manufacturing ... vs Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, ... on 25 August, 1971
Equivalent citations: AIR 1975 SC 756, 1974 93 ITR 603 SC
Author: K Hegde
Bench: A Grover, K Hegde

JUDGMENT

K.S. Hegde, J.

1. The question referred for the opinion of the High Court under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 is:

Whether in the circumstances of the case, in computing "net wealth" as defined in Section 2(m) of the Wealth Tax Act or in assessing the net value of the assets under Section 7(2) of the said Act, the liability of the Company in respect of gratuity in terms of the Industrial Court Awards for the benefit of its employees in respect of their periods of service upto the valuation date, should be allowed as a deduction.

2. The High Court following the decision of this Court in Standard Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commr. of Wealth Tax, Bombay answered that question in favour of the department. It is not disputed that the said decision governs the facts of this case, but we are asked to have that decision reconsidered by a larger bench in view of the decision of this Court in Metal Box Co. of India Ltd. v. Their Workmen .

3. Metal Box Co. case was a decision rendered under the Bonus Act. In that decision the learned Judges referred to the decision of Standard Mills Co. Ltd. and distinguished the same. In our opinion there is no conflict between the two decisions.

4. For the reasons mentioned above, we see no justification for refer ring this case to a larger bench for reconsideration of the decision in Standard Mills Co. Ltd., . In the result this appeal fails and the same is dismissed with costs.