Wealth-tax valuation of unquoted shares and void gifts of ancestral HUF property under the mandatory valuation rule

Unquoted equity shares are to be valued under rule 1D for wealth-tax purposes, and advance tax paid by the company is not a permissible deduction in that valuation. A karta of a Hindu undivided family cannot validly gift ancestral HUF property to a third party; such a transfer is void ab initio and does not operate as a gift in law. Because the transfer is legally ineffective, section 4(1)(a) does not validate it, and the value remains includible in the taxable wealth of the HUF. The commentary also notes that the prescribed valuation method for unquoted shares is mandatory.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the value of unquoted equity shares had to be determined under rule 1D while computing wealth, and whether advance tax paid by the company could be deducted. (ii) Whether a karta of a Hindu undivided family could make a valid gift of ancestral HUF shares to a third party and, if not, whether such gift was includible in the taxable wealth.

Issue (i): Whether the value of unquoted equity shares had to be determined under rule 1D while computing wealth, and whether advance tax paid by the company could be deducted.

Analysis: The valuation issue was governed by the mandatory application of rule 1D for unquoted equity shares. The reduction of value on account of advance tax paid by the company was not sustainable in view of the binding position settled by the Supreme Court.

Conclusion: The shares had to be revalued in accordance with rule 1D, and the assessee was not entitled to reduction on the ground of advance tax paid.

Issue (ii): Whether a karta of a Hindu undivided family could make a valid gift of ancestral HUF shares to a third party and, if not, whether such gift was includible in the taxable wealth.

Analysis: Ancestral property belonging to a Hindu undivided family could not be validly gifted by the karta, whether to a coparcener or to a stranger. Such a transfer was void ab initio and did not amount to a gift in law. Consequently, section 4(1)(a) had no application to validate the transfer as a taxable gift.

Conclusion: The gift was void and the amount remained includible in the taxable wealth of the Hindu undivided family.

Final Conclusion: The revenue's appeals succeeded, the order of the first appellate authority was set aside, and the assessment order was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A karta cannot validly gift ancestral HUF property, and a transfer that is void in law does not constitute a gift for tax purposes; valuation of unquoted shares must follow the mandatory prescribed rule.

---