Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for valuing unquoted equity shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the provision for gratuity shown in the balance-sheet was a contingent liability excluded by Explanation II(ii)(f), and whether rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 was justified.
Analysis: Rule 1D requires deduction of liabilities shown in the balance-sheet, but excludes contingent liabilities. The decisive question was whether the gratuity provision, when computed on actuarial valuation, represented a contingent liability or an existing liability. The Court held that a provision made on the basis of actuarial valuation is a provision for a known and existing liability, even though payment falls due in the future, and therefore it does not fall within the expression contingent liability. The decision also held that the provisions of the Income-tax Act did not govern this question. Since the original valuation had taken the gratuity provision into account on a lawful basis, there was no mistake apparent from the record warranting rectification under section 61.
Conclusion: The gratuity provision could not be treated as a contingent liability for rule 1D purposes, and the rectification order was unjustified. The question referred was answered in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the accountable person.