https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10841 The Court allowed the appeal under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing that statutory provisions cannot be estopped despite prior agreements. It directed the deduction for arrears of dividends on preference shares and depreciation, overturning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. However, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue on the deduction issue, stating that unprovided depreciation and undeclared dividends cannot be deducted as liabilities when determining the value of shares under rule 1D. The judgment clarified the entitlement to appeal and restrictions on deductions, providing a detailed legal analysis and upholding the Revenue's position. en-us Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 17:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10841 The Court allowed the appeal under the Wealth-tax Act, emphasizing that statutory provisions cannot be estopped despite prior agreements. It directed the deduction for arrears of dividends on preference shares and depreciation, overturning the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's decision. However, the Court ruled in favor of the Revenue on the deduction issue, stating that unprovided depreciation and undeclared dividends cannot be deducted as liabilities when determining the value of shares under rule 1D. The judgment clarified the entitlement to appeal and restrictions on deductions, providing a detailed legal analysis and upholding the Revenue's position. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 26 Jul 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=10841