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 :

        1982 (5) TMI 97 - 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 rules in favor of assessee on share valuation, emphasizing adherence to WT Rules The Tribunal upheld the assessee's appeal, ruling that the valuation of shares should adhere to rule 1D of the WT Rules. It found the WTO's valuation ...
                          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 rules in favor of assessee on share valuation, emphasizing adherence to WT Rules

                              The Tribunal upheld the assessee's appeal, ruling that the valuation of shares should adhere to rule 1D of the WT Rules. It found the WTO's valuation method for the shares of M/s Escorts Farms (R) Ltd. appropriate and emphasized the necessity of aligning adjustments with rule 1D provisions. The Tribunal concluded that the CWT's orders were not erroneous, leading to the cancellation of the CWT's order and allowing the appeals. The Tribunal did not address the alternative contention regarding rule 1D's application to an investment company.




                              Issues: Valuation of assessee's holdings in two companies and application of rule 1D of WT Rules.

                              Analysis:
                              1. The judgment concerns the valuation of the assessee's holdings in two companies, M/s Escorts Farms (Ramgarh) Ltd. and M/s. Intercontinent Travancore (P) Ltd. The WTO valued the shares of these companies differently, with a focus on the market value of the shares of M/s Escorts Ltd., New Delhi, which was quoted in the stock exchange. The assessee challenged the valuation before the CIT (A) regarding the shares of M/s Intercontinent Travancore (P) Ltd.

                              2. The WTO valued the shares of M/s Escorts Farms (R) Ltd. without adjusting for the market value of the shares of M/s Escorts Ltd., New Delhi, held by the former company. The CWT found this valuation method erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue's interest. The CWT opined that the valuation should have considered the market value of the shares of M/s Escorts Ltd., New Delhi, rather than solely relying on the cost price of the shares held by M/s Escorts Farms (R) Ltd.

                              3. The CWT provided the assessee with an opportunity to be heard, where the assessee argued that the valuation method applied by the WTO was correct and that rule 1D did not apply to the case of M/s Escorts Farms (R) Ltd. The CWT rejected these contentions and emphasized the importance of considering the market value of the shares in the valuation process.

                              4. The assessee appealed the CWT's decision, arguing that the valuation of unquoted shares should be done in accordance with rule 1D of the WT Rules. The assessee contended that the market value of the shares of M/s Escorts Ltd., New Delhi, should not be considered part of the balance sheet for valuation purposes. The counsel for the assessee also referenced a Tribunal decision in support of their argument.

                              5. The ld. Deptl. Rep. countered the assessee's arguments, stating that the market value of the shares should be considered as part of the balance sheet for valuation. The Deptl. Rep. argued that rule 1D permitted the adjustment sought by the CWT in the valuation process.

                              6. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and agreed with the assessee's counsel that the valuation of shares should be subject to rules made in this regard, including rule 1D of the WT Rules. The Tribunal found no error in the method adopted by the WTO in valuing the shares of M/s Escorts Farms (R) Ltd., and emphasized that adjustments under rule 1D should align with the provisions outlined in the rule.

                              7. The Tribunal concluded that the orders passed by the WTO were not erroneous and did not prejudice the revenue's interests. Therefore, the CWT's jurisdiction to apply the provision of s. 25(2) of the WT Act, 1957, was deemed unnecessary, and the CWT's order was canceled, with the appeals allowed. The Tribunal did not delve into the alternative contention regarding the application of rule 1D to an investment company.

                              This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues related to the valuation of the assessee's holdings in the mentioned companies and the application of rule 1D of the WT Rules in the valuation process.
                              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