REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHYAM SUNDER CHOWDHARY Appellant

V/S

GIFT TAX OFFICER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR ONTARIO V. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CANADA [REFERRED TO]
CHARLES I. DAWSON V. KENTUCKY DISTILLERIES AND WAREHOUSE CO. [REFERRED TO]
MEGH RAJ V ALLAH RAKHIA [REFERRED TO]
RALLA RAM V. PROVINCE OF EAST PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
TAN BUG TAIM V. COLLECTOR OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
BASUDEVA V. REX [REFERRED TO]
D.H. NAZARETH V. IIND GIFT-TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
SESHARATNAM V. GIFT-TAX OFFICER,PALACOLE [REFERRED TO]
M.T. JOSEPH V. GIFT-TAX OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
DANDAPANI V. ADDITIONAL GIFT-TAX OFFICER,CUDDALORE [REFERRED TO]
MST GAINDI V. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAJAHMUNDRY ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
M P V SUNDARARAMIER AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HARI KRISHNA BHARGAV VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
L JUGAL KISHORE VS. WEALTH TAX OFFICER SPECIAL CIRCLE C WARD KANPUR [REFERRED TO]
NARASARAOPETA ELECTRIC CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, the vires of the Gift Tax Act (No. 18 of 1958) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been challenged. IN writ petition No. 566 of 1961, however, the order of the Gift Tax Officer also has been assailed on the ground that no finding has been recorded to the effect that the impugned transaction was mala fide and could not for that reason be a gift.

(2.) AS the main question raised in the two writ petitions is a common one we proceed to dispose them of by means of this common judgment.

(3.) THE argument of Mr. Kunzru, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that a gift tax cannot be imposed either under an Act of Parliament, or under an Act of a State Legislature is in the teeth of the express provision of Article 248 and the clear language of Entry 97 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. Mr. Kunzru has not been able to point out to us how a legislation like the impugned Act can escape the wide sweep of Article 248 and Entry 97. It is trite that an Entry must be read in its widest amplitude.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHYAM SUNDER CHOWDHRY Vs. GIFT TAX OFFICER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address