https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14498 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee in interpreting rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules for valuing unquoted equity shares of private limited companies. The Court held that rule 1D is exhaustive, disallowing deductions such as advance tax while valuing unquoted equity shares. Additionally, the Court clarified that advance tax paid should not be considered a liability for valuation purposes under the break-up value method. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with no costs awarded. en-us Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:25:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14498 The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee in interpreting rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules for valuing unquoted equity shares of private limited companies. The Court held that rule 1D is exhaustive, disallowing deductions such as advance tax while valuing unquoted equity shares. Additionally, the Court clarified that advance tax paid should not be considered a liability for valuation purposes under the break-up value method. The decision aligned with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, leading to the dismissal of the appeals with no costs awarded. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 02 Sep 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14498