https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17986 A gratuity provision computed on actuarial valuation was treated as a known and existing liability, not a contingent liability excluded under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, so it had to be considered in valuing unquoted equity shares. The Court also held that the Income-tax Act did not control this issue. Because the original valuation had lawfully taken the gratuity provision into account, there was no mistake apparent from the record to justify rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the rectification order was unwarranted. en-us Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Sep 2009 11:03:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17986 A gratuity provision computed on actuarial valuation was treated as a known and existing liability, not a contingent liability excluded under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, so it had to be considered in valuing unquoted equity shares. The Court also held that the Income-tax Act did not control this issue. Because the original valuation had lawfully taken the gratuity provision into account, there was no mistake apparent from the record to justify rectification under section 61 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, and the rectification order was unwarranted. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 29 Mar 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=17986