TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1989 (7) TMI 74
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e referred at the instance of the petitioner relates to the valuation of property at No. 15, Original Road, New Delhi. The said property has been let out and the Wealth-tax Officer computed its value at Rs. 4,17,000 accepting the valuation of the respondent. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax revised the said order and came to the conclusion that the value of land could have been taken at Rs. 250 p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the order of the Wealth-tax Officer was not prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not accepting the findings of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax that the Wealth-tax Officer should have estimated the valuation of the property by adopting the rental method which was the proper method in the present....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f fact. There is merit in the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the aforesaid questions can be regarded as questions of law but the answer to the said questions is self-evident in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the respondent's own case, Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT [1981] 131 ITR 435. That was an appeal filed by the respondent in the present case and the contention of th....