TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
AI-powered research trained on the authentic TaxTMI database.
Launch AI Search →Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>High Court allows application under Estate Duty Act, directs Tribunal to state case & refer question within 9 months</h1> The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the application under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court directed the Tribunal to state the ... Valuation under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules - Acceptance of lower valuation than declared by the accountable person - Retrospective operation of a procedural rule - Statement of case and reference under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953Valuation under rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules - Acceptance of lower valuation than declared by the accountable person - Statement of case and reference under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Whether the Tribunal may adopt a valuation under rule 1BB that is lower than the value declared by the accountable person for the purpose of estate duty assessment - HELD THAT: - The Tribunal had accepted a valuation lower than that declared by the accountable person for a residential house and applied rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules. The accountable person had declared a higher value. The High Court found that this question of law requires authoritative determination and therefore should be the subject of a statement of the case and reference under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The Court noted that the retrospectivity of rule 1BB was not pressed before it (it being conceded that the rule is procedural and retrospective), but proceeded to identify the separate legal question whether a lesser valuation under rule 1BB can be accepted notwithstanding a higher self-declared value. For that reason the Court remitted the matter to the Tribunal to frame and transmit a statement of the case referring that specific question for the Court's opinion, and directed the Tribunal to endeavour to comply within nine months.Application allowed in part; Tribunal directed to state the case and refer the specified question whether a lower valuation under rule 1BB may be adopted despite a higher declared value, with compliance sought within nine months; no order as to costs; counsel fee fixed for each side.Final Conclusion: The High Court allowed the application in part and remitted the legal question whether a valuation under rule 1BB lower than the accountable person's declared value may be accepted to the Tribunal for a statement of the case and reference under section 64(3), directing the Tribunal to act within nine months; no costs were ordered and counsel fees fixed. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed the application under section 64(3) of the Estate Duty Act, 1953. The court directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer question No. 2 for opinion within nine months. No costs were awarded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
