https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26808 The court ruled that Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules is mandatory when the valuation date of the company and the assessee coincide, but directory if the dates differ. The court held Rule 1D valid but conditional on the alignment of valuation dates. If the Wealth-tax Officer's valuation exceeds the returned value significantly, referral to the Valuation Officer is mandatory. The court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to address challenges to Rule 1D's validity. The petition was allowed, directing the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to reassess valuation following the court's decision, with costs awarded to the petitioner. en-us Wed, 28 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:15:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26808 The court ruled that Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules is mandatory when the valuation date of the company and the assessee coincide, but directory if the dates differ. The court held Rule 1D valid but conditional on the alignment of valuation dates. If the Wealth-tax Officer's valuation exceeds the returned value significantly, referral to the Valuation Officer is mandatory. The court exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 to address challenges to Rule 1D's validity. The petition was allowed, directing the Commissioner of Wealth-tax to reassess valuation following the court's decision, with costs awarded to the petitioner. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Wed, 28 Aug 1985 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=26808