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 value of the assessee's unquoted shares in a non-investment company was required to be determined compulsorily under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, or on the basis of the valuation principles laid down by the Delhi High Court, including the yield method.
Analysis: The valuation dates of the assessee and the accounting year of the company were not the same, and the binding Delhi High Court decision had held that rule 1D was not mandatory in such a situation. The appellate authority had not taken that position into account and had adopted rule 1D notwithstanding the applicable High Court ruling. The Tribunal directed that the shares be valued in accordance with the principles laid down in the Delhi High Court decision and permitted the valuation report filed by the assessee to be considered.
Conclusion: Rule 1D was not mandatory on the facts, and the valuation had to be redetermined on the basis of the governing judicial principles, including the yield method where appropriate.
Final Conclusion: The valuation orders were set aside and the matter was sent back for fresh determination in accordance with the binding High Court guidance.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the valuation dates and the company's accounting year do not coincide, rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 is not compulsory, and the valuation of unquoted shares must follow the applicable judicial principles.