TaxTMI Login
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%
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the reassessment for the relevant assessment years could be validly reopened on the basis of the Departmental Valuation Officer's report as "information" under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957; (ii) Whether the residential house property could be valued under section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and whether Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1958 applied to the valuation of the residential and let out properties.
Issue (i): Whether the reassessment for the relevant assessment years could be validly reopened on the basis of the Departmental Valuation Officer's report as "information" under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Analysis: The reassessment was founded only on the subsequent valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer. In identical circumstances, the Supreme Court had declined to interfere, and that position was treated as governing the issue. On that basis, the valuation report was not regarded as fresh "information" capable of justifying reopening under the reassessment provision.
Conclusion: The reopening was not valid and the reassessments for the two years were quashed, in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the residential house property could be valued under section 7(4) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, and whether Rule 1BB of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1958 applied to the valuation of the residential and let out properties.
Analysis: The claim under section 7(4) failed because the property was not exclusively used for residential purposes, a part having been used as a consulting room and dispensary. At the same time, Rule 1BB was held applicable to the determination of the value of the residential property, being a procedural rule of mandatory and retrospective operation, and it was also held applicable to the let out property.
Conclusion: The claim to value the property under section 7(4) was rejected, but Rule 1BB governed the valuation, partly in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The reassessment was invalid, but the valuation claim under section 7(4) was disallowed and valuation had to proceed under Rule 1BB.
Ratio Decidendi: A departmental valuation report obtained after the original assessment is not, by itself, "information" for reopening when it does not disclose new material beyond the earlier assessment, and Rule 1BB is a mandatory procedural rule applicable retrospectively to pending wealth-tax valuation proceedings.
TaxTMI 
