TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (5) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd the same was not dissolved. The dispute in the writ petition related to the assessment and imposition of wealth-tax, therefore, for the assessment years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86, for which the relevant valuation dates were April 13, 1983, April 1, 1984, and March 21, 1985, respectively. In the wealth-tax returns for the three assessment years, the petitioner disclosed his interest in the said firm, valued on the basis of the difference between the debit balance and credit balance of the petitioner in the books of the firm in the capital and current accounts. The petitioner valued and was assessed on the aforesaid basis up to the assessment year 1980-81. By notice issued under sections 16(2) and 16(4) of the said Act, dated August 3/7....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated as the value of the interest of that partner in the firm. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh, learned Additional Solicitor-General, submits that this writ petition has become infructuous in view of change of law during the pendency of the writ petition, by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, section 7 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, has been amended by way of replacement of the old section 7 by a new one with effect from April 1, 1989. By such amendment of section 7, Schedule III was introduced for the purpose of determining the value of assets. He submits that the new provisions Schedule III, Part E, para. 16, sets out the mode of computation of net wealth of the firm or association and its allocation amongst the partners or members. At the sam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealed. I cannot accept the argument of Dr. Pal that rule 2 should be held to be ultra vires the Constitution of India, even it is made applicable. It is not the case of the petitioner as rightly pointed out by Mr. Ghosh that the provision of the said rule (since repealed) offends any of the rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution of India or any provision of the Constitution. Therefore, the said rule cannot be held to be declared ultra vires on the ground of arbitrariness, unreasonableness as it has been laid down and held by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court, one of which has been cited by Mr. Ghosh reported in State of Andhra Pradesh v. McDowell and Co., AIR 1996 SC 1627. In the said decision it has been held amongst ot....