Just a moment...
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 the Tribunal was justified in treating rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 as applicable to the estate duty valuation question and whether the second proposed question, concerning adoption of the lower value under that rule despite a higher value declared by the accountable person, required reference under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.
Analysis: The first proposed question was not pursued after the position was accepted that rule 1BB, being procedural in nature, operated retrospectively. On the second question, the accountable person had declared the house at a higher value, and the controversy remained whether, after application of rule 1BB, the lower value could be adopted for estate duty purposes. The Court found that this question did arise from the record and was fit to be referred for opinion under section 64(3).
Conclusion: The second question was directed to be stated and referred to the Court for opinion.
Final Conclusion: The application succeeded only to the extent of securing a reference on the surviving question, and the matter was not decided on the substantive valuation issue.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a valuation dispute under estate duty turns on the effect of rule 1BB and the issue arises from the record, the question is referable under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953.