TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (12) TMI 140
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f unquoted equity shares owned by the assessees of M/s. R.S. Rekhchand Mohota Spinning and Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd., Bombay and Shree Vinay Waste Reclamations Pvt. Ltd., Hinganghat. The two companies are other than investment companies and Managing Agency Companies. 3. The department has been valuing the shares of these companies in the hands of the assessees on the yield basis right-up to the assessment year 1984-85. Earlier, the Wealth-tax Officer, disagreeing with the stand of the assessees valued these shares by the break-up method as laid down in rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. On appeal the learned A.A.C. of Wealth-tax following the order dated 7-4-1982 of the Tribunal in W.T.A. Nos. 254, 255 & 256 (Nag.)/81, directed the share....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re a company had ceased to be a going concern and was not showing any profits. In the case in hand although the two companies were not showing assessable profits, yet they were going concerns and had disclosed commercial and maintainable profits and there was, therefore, no justification for applying the break-up value method. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the assessees, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan [1972] 86 ITR 621. In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessees also referred to the valuation of the shares of the two companies made by two different valuers, namely, Shri K.C. Agrawal & Co., Chartered Accountants and Shri Shantilal Chandaliya & Co., Chart....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cases for the assessment years 1985-86 and 1986-87. For this purpose reliance was placed on the same ruling of the Madras High Court in L. G. Ramamurthi's case. As regards the mandatory nature of the rule 1D, the learned counsel for the assessees countered the argument of the learned Departmental Representative by referring to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. CWT [1980] 124 ITR 799. 7. Now, we have before us the order of the Nagpur Bench of the Tribunal in the assessees' own cases for the immediately preceding assessment, years, that is 1985-86 and 1986-87. In that order dated 24-6-1988, the Tribunal has upheld the contention of the department and directed the valuation of these shares by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....C. Agrawal & Co. and Shantilal Chandaliya & Co. The learned counsel for the assessees contended that since such valuation reports were not before the earlier Bench and since they have been submitted before the present Bench, such submission constitutes a change in facts and circumstances and provides a goods and valid basis for reviewing the earlier decision of the Bench. We have given our careful and anxious thought to this aspect of the matter, but find ourselves not persuaded to accept this contention of the learned counsel for the assessees. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the assessees that the facts and circumstances concerning the nature of the business of the two companies, the prospects of profitability and such other....