Loading...

⚠ โœ•
❮ Top
☎ Help
Draft upto 3 replies to a
tax notice โ€” FREE ๐ŸŽ‰ โœ•

150 credits ยท 30 days

โ€ข Basic Search โ†’ 1 Credit
โ€ข Advanced Search โ†’ 3 Credits
โ€ข Drafter โ†’ 20 to extract + 25 per issue
(โ‰ˆ upto 2-3 drafts on us)

Already used our earlier 20-Credit Demo?
You are still eligible for this new 150-Credit Demo.

Activate your FREE Demo โ†’
☰
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedbackโœ•

Contact Us At :

✉ E-mail: [email protected]

✆ Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

1977 (12) TMI 25

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. should be deducted in computing the break-up value of the shares of these companies for purposes of wealth-tax assessment of the assessees for the assessment year 1962-63 ?" The reference arises out of the assessment under the Wealth-tax Act on an individual for the year 1962-63, the corresponding valuation date being 31st March, 1962. Amongst other assets, the assessee owned 4,620 shares of the face value of Rs. 100 each in a company called Caprihans (India) Pvt. Ltd. Similarly, he held 800 shares of the face value of Rs. 50 each in a company called Mangaldas H. Verma Pvt. Ltd. In valuing these shares, the Wealth-tax Officer adopted the break-up method and in doing so, considered that the provision for additional super-tax under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... The view taken was that before an order was passed under section 23A, the possible liability to super-tax under that section could not be said to have ripened into a debt. It was contended before the Madras High Court that the liability to pay additional super-tax under section 23A sprang not from the order which the Income-tax Officer may make, but from section 23A itself. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered the scheme of section 23A and observed at page 113 : "The structure of section 23A and the manner in which the liability to additional super-tax arises thereunder leave no room for doubt that the liability is not charged automatically by statutory force but arises only from an order of the Income-tax Officer, wh....