TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1979 (5) TMI 31
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... adopted it at Rs. 1,93,524. There are no rules under the ED Act for valuing the shares of a private limited company which are unquoted. Therefore, the Asstt. Controller, adopted the method under WT Rules (1-D). 2. While adopting the method as given in r. 1-D of the WT Rules the Assistant Contr., deducted advance tax of Rs. 67,031 from out of the assets while ignored the tax deducted at source. This is the first grievance of the appellant. The appellate Controller in his order did not deal with the matter elaborately and simply stated that the Asstt. Controller, worked out the value as per r. 1-D of the WT Rules and the accountable person did not furnish any details as to how the value was determined by her. Mr. Kothari, appearing for the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eeds. 3. The second aspect relating to the computation of the valuation of the shares as per r.1-D is about the provision for taxation. The Asstt. Controller, worked out the tax payable at Rs. 2,17,150. From out of this the advance tax deducted was to the extent of Rs. 67,031. This is obviously an error. Rs. 67,031 formed part of the assets which has to be excluded as already mentioned. There is no question of taking that amount again from out of the provision for taxation. Rule 1-D of the WT Rules contemplates ignoring of liabilities in terms of sub-cl. (e) to cl. (ii) of Expln. II in the following manner: "(e). Any amount representing provision for taxation other than the amount referred to in cl. (I) (a) to the extent of the excess o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....money-lending business and rental income and in only one year it received commission of Rs.28,000 (accounting year 1971-72). It is further submitted that there was no commission business either before or subsequently. Therefore, it is argued that stray receipt of commission in only one year should not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the goodwill of a business. 5. Mr. Nayak once again objects to the consideration of the above facts as these facts did not appear from the order of the Asstt. Controller, or from the order of the Appellate Contr. But we find that his objection is highly technical and, in fact, does not deserve consideration mainly because the question as to from what sources the firm received income is a p....