TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (3) TMI 108
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Act') itself starts with the opening words 'subject to any rules made in this behalf' and the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of CWT v. Sripat Singhania [1978] 112 ITR 363, CWT v. Padampat Singhania [1979] 117 ITR 443 and Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1979] 119 ITR 258 has laid down that rule 1D is binding on the revenue authorities and the appellate authorities. Our attention was invited to two decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Smt. Pramila Devi Jayaswal v. WTO [1985] 11 ITD 614 (Cal.) and WTO v. Mrs. Ritu Nanda [1985] 14 ITD 269 (Delhi), where the valuation of unquoted equity shares of a company was made by the wealth-tax authorities under rule 1D and this action was not disapproved by the Tribunal. Shri Prakash also ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he yield method or under the break up method prescribed by rule 1D was not an issue and, therefore, the decisions of the Tribunal in these two cases are of no help in deciding the issue under considerations here. He then took us through the decision of the Special Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi, where the Special Bench of the Tribunal in paragraphs 9 and 18 of its order clearly pointed out that the decisions of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. On the same parity of reasoning, according to Shri Patil, the Bombay Benches of the Tribunal are bound by the decisions of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court. He then referred to two rulings of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, one in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. CWT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Shri patil also filed before us a copy of the order of the Tribunal in the case of R. S. Mehta, K. S. Mehta, Harish R. Mehta, N. K. Mehta, Ketan K. Mehta, A. K. Mehta, Anand K. Mehta and Vinod K. Mehta [WT Appeal Nos. 1408 to 1418 (Bom.) of 1983.], where the identical issue cropped up and the Tribunal held that the value of unquoted entity shares should be worked out under the yield method instead of under the break up method prescribed under rule 1D. Summing up, Shri Patil vehemently argued before us that the direction of the Commissioner (Appeals) /AAC was perfectly justified and should be upheld. 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. At the outset it will be necessary to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent issue. In the case of Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi decided by the Special Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi, the Tribunal in paragraphs 9 and 18 of its order has clearly indicated that the ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the cases of Sripat Singhania, Padampat Singhania and Bharat Hari Singhania were binding on them while deciding that appeal. We, however, constituting the Bench at Bombay and dealing with an assessee of Bombay, who is not under the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, are not bound by the ruling of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. In the cases of Sripat Singhania, Padampat Singhania and Bharat Hari Singhania their Lordship of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court did not consider the ruling of the Hon'bl....