https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22417 Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules were treated as operating consistently, so no repugnancy arose and neither provision overrode the other. On that basis, arbitrators making a valuation in a reference under section 24(6) were required to apply rule 1D and could not ignore it. The Revenue was also held unable to rely on rule 1D at the reference stage because no specific objection had been raised before the Tribunal. The stated ratio is that a valuation rule aligned with the parent statute governs the process, and a new objection cannot be introduced later if it was not specifically taken earlier. en-us Wed, 21 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Dec 2009 18:53:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22417 Section 24(6) of the Wealth-tax Act and rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules were treated as operating consistently, so no repugnancy arose and neither provision overrode the other. On that basis, arbitrators making a valuation in a reference under section 24(6) were required to apply rule 1D and could not ignore it. The Revenue was also held unable to rely on rule 1D at the reference stage because no specific objection had been raised before the Tribunal. The stated ratio is that a valuation rule aligned with the parent statute governs the process, and a new objection cannot be introduced later if it was not specifically taken earlier. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 21 Nov 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=22417