<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1991 (6) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63956</link>
    <description>Rule 1C of the Wealth-tax Rules applies to unquoted preference shares only where the specific class of shares and the rights attached to them are established. For valuation of closing stock, the court noted that private companies may issue different varieties of preference shares, so applicability of the rule depends on the terms of issue and the rights in the memorandum or articles. In the absence of material showing those terms, the taxpayer cannot assume that Rule 1C governs the valuation or that the shares fall within the relevant category. The tax authorities were therefore justified in rejecting the assessee&#039;s valuation, subject to limited consequential relief for identified valuation mistakes.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:13:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=102398" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1991 (6) TMI 107 - ITAT DELHI-C</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63956</link>
      <description>Rule 1C of the Wealth-tax Rules applies to unquoted preference shares only where the specific class of shares and the rights attached to them are established. For valuation of closing stock, the court noted that private companies may issue different varieties of preference shares, so applicability of the rule depends on the terms of issue and the rights in the memorandum or articles. In the absence of material showing those terms, the taxpayer cannot assume that Rule 1C governs the valuation or that the shares fall within the relevant category. The tax authorities were therefore justified in rejecting the assessee&#039;s valuation, subject to limited consequential relief for identified valuation mistakes.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Income Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jun 1991 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=63956</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>