https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60688 The tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to value unquoted shares based on a registered valuer's report, rejecting the revenue's argument that rule 1D should be followed. The tribunal considered rule 1D as one of several valuation methods, not mandatory, citing a Bombay High Court decision. The AAC's order was affirmed, emphasizing factors determining share value from Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions. The appeals by the revenue were dismissed, concluding the valuation dispute in favor of the assessee. en-us Mon, 27 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jan 2011 16:09:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60688 The tribunal upheld the AAC's decision to value unquoted shares based on a registered valuer's report, rejecting the revenue's argument that rule 1D should be followed. The tribunal considered rule 1D as one of several valuation methods, not mandatory, citing a Bombay High Court decision. The AAC's order was affirmed, emphasizing factors determining share value from Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions. The appeals by the revenue were dismissed, concluding the valuation dispute in favor of the assessee. Case-Laws Wealth-tax Mon, 27 Feb 1984 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=60688