TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court directs valuation questions under Wealth-tax Act 1957 for review</h1> <h3>Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus HEH. The Nizams Trust</h3> Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax Versus HEH. The Nizams Trust - [1996] 221 ITR 295 Issues: Valuation of jewellery under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957The judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved several questions regarding the valuation of jewellery under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Revenue sought reference of specific questions for consideration. The first issue was whether uncertainties, hazards, risks of litigation, and cumulative tax liability should be considered to reduce the estimated market value of jewellery. The second issue raised was about the concept of a notional open market and any restrictions on the sale of assets. The third question was related to allowing a deduction from the valuation fixed by the approved valuer due to uncertainties and risks. The fourth issue concerned the exemption under section 5(1)(xii) for certain items of jewellery claimed to be art treasures. The fifth issue was whether the Wealth-tax Officer could make further adjustments to the valuation determined by the Valuation Officer under section 16A. The sixth question was about the cancellation of assessment under section 21(1A) and the treatment of trust fund corpus. The seventh issue involved the scope of section 21(1A) and its applicability to assessments under section 21(4). The eighth and final issue was regarding the confirmation of the value of the fund at 50% of the valuation fixed by the departmental valuer, considering certain issues not considered by the valuer himself.The High Court directed the reference of questions concerning valuation of jewellery, as well as a debatable question of law raised in question No. 4. Questions 6 and 7 were deemed not arising from the Tribunal's order and were not referred. The judgment partly allowed the wealth-tax case without imposing any costs.
TaxTMI 