1989 (12) TMI 140 - AT - Wealth-tax

Appellate Tribunal Upholds Valuation of Unquoted Equity Shares Using Break-Up Method

The Appellate Tribunal upheld the valuation of unquoted equity shares owned by the assessees using the break-up method over the yield method, despite ... Assessment Year, Break Up Method, Unquoted Shares Issues: Valuation of unquoted equity shares owned by the assessees of two companiesAnalysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Nagpur involved six appeals by the assessees against orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Wealth-tax related to the assessment year 1987-88. The main issue in these appeals was the valuation of unquoted equity shares owned by the assessees of two companies, M/s. R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., and Shree Vinay Waste Reclamations Pvt. Ltd. The department had been valuing these shares on a yield basis, but a previous order directed valuation by the break-up method. The assessees argued for the yield method, citing the companies' profitability and commercial viability. They also referred to valuation reports by two different firms. The department argued for the mandatory nature of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules and consistency in valuation methods. The Tribunal considered whether it could take a different view from a previous decision and if there had been a material change in circumstances. The Tribunal found no valid basis for departing from the break-up value method, considering the wide disparity in valuations and the legislative intent to estimate market value. Ultimately, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the valuation by the break-up method for the shares.This judgment delves into the application of valuation methods for unquoted equity shares, specifically focusing on the dispute between the yield method and the break-up value method. The assessees argued for the yield method based on past practice and the companies' profitability, while the department emphasized the mandatory nature of rule 1D and consistency in valuation. The Tribunal analyzed whether it could deviate from a previous decision and if there had been a material change in circumstances. Despite new valuation reports, the Tribunal found no substantial change to warrant a departure from the break-up method, citing the significant difference in valuations and the legislative intent behind valuation rules. The judgment highlights the importance of consistency in valuation methods and the need for a valid basis to justify a change in approach. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the valuation by the break-up method, dismissing the appeals by the assessees.