Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        whatsappJoin Channel
        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1987 (5) TMI 42 - AT - Wealth-tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal orders revaluation of shares based on yield & break-up methods, aligning with judicial precedents. The Tribunal directed the Wealth Tax Officer to revalue the shares of M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd. on the yield basis and the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. ...
                        Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                            Tribunal orders revaluation of shares based on yield & break-up methods, aligning with judicial precedents.

                            The Tribunal directed the Wealth Tax Officer to revalue the shares of M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd. on the yield basis and the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. Nil using the break-up method, aligning with judicial precedents and the companies' specific circumstances. The appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders.




                            Issues Involved:
                            1. Valuation method for unquoted shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd.
                            2. Alternative ground for valuation of shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. Nil.
                            3. Compliance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax (WT) Rules as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court.

                            Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                            1. Valuation method for unquoted shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd.:

                            The appellant contended that the unquoted shares of M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd. should be valued on the yield basis, while the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd., being in liquidation, should be valued at Nil based on the break-up method. This claim was supported by the case of CGT vs. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 366 and other related judgments. However, the Wealth Tax Officer (WTO) rejected this claim, applying Rule 1D of the WT Rules to value the shares.

                            The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the WTO's valuation, asserting that the correct method was followed. At the hearing, the appellant's representative argued that Rule 1D was directory, not mandatory, and thus, the yield basis should be applied, referencing CWT vs. Kasturbhai Mayabhai (1986) 51 CTR (Guj) 309. The Departmental Representative countered with decisions such as WTO vs. Seth Sudhirkumar Modi (1986) 24 TTJ (Del) 289, which held Rule 1D as mandatory.

                            The Tribunal reviewed various judicial pronouncements, including the historical context of Rule 1D. It noted that the Supreme Court in CWT vs. Mahadeo Jalan (1972) 86 ITR 621 (SC) had established that the yield method is generally applicable, while the break-up method is for exceptional cases or companies ripe for liquidation.

                            The Tribunal concluded that the valuation of shares of M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd. should be on the yield basis, adhering to the principles laid out in Mahadeo Jalan. For M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd., the break-up method was appropriate due to its liquidation status.

                            2. Alternative ground for valuation of shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. at Rs. Nil:

                            The appellant argued that the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. should be valued at Nil due to the company's liquidation status. The Tribunal found this claim consistent with the break-up method, which is applicable when a company is in liquidation. Thus, the Tribunal directed the WTO to revalue the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. using the break-up method.

                            3. Compliance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax (WT) Rules as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court:

                            The appellant contended that the WTO's valuation did not comply with Rule 1D as understood by the Gujarat High Court in CWT vs. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46 (Guj). The Tribunal examined the judicial history and interpretations of Rule 1D, noting that the Bombay High Court in N.C. Upadhya & Anr. vs. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (1980) 124 ITR 799 (Bom) had held Rule 1D as directory. The Tribunal also considered the Gujarat High Court's view in CWT vs. Kasturbhai Mayabhai, which supported the yield method for going concerns and the break-up method for companies in liquidation.

                            The Tribunal concluded that Rule 1D should be applied as directory, not mandatory, aligning with the principles established by higher judicial authorities. Consequently, the valuation of shares of M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd. should be on the yield basis, while the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. should be valued using the break-up method due to its liquidation status.

                            Conclusion:

                            The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s orders and directed the WTO to revalue the shares of M/s Mehta Pvt. Ltd. on the yield basis and the shares of M/s Jagdish Industries Pvt. Ltd. on the break-up method. The appeal was allowed in part, aligning the valuation methods with judicial precedents and the specific circumstances of the companies involved.
                            Full Summary is available for active users!
                            Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                            Topics

                            ActsIncome Tax
                            No Records Found