TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1986 (1) TMI 145
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppeal. 2. Contention of the learned departmental representative is that rule 1D is a mandatory provision and, therefore, the learned AAC erred in directing the unquoted shares of Asiatic Wires Ltd. to be valued according to yield method. He in support placed reliance upon Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1979] 119 ITR 258 (All.) and CWT v. Mamman Varghese [1983] 139 ITR 351 (Ker.). The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, contended that the said rule 1D is directory and not mandatory. In support he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia [1980] 122 ITR 38 and the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. CWT [1980] 124 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CWT [1973] 90 ITR 97 with these observations: "Bare reading of the section makes it plain that subject to any rules which may be made in this behalf, the value of the assets, other than cash, has to be the price which the assets, in the opinion of the Wealth-tax Officer, would fetch in the open market on the valuation date. It would, therefore, follow that in the absence of any rule prescribing a different criterion, the value of an asset, other than cash, should be taken to be the price which it would fetch if sold in the open market on the valuation date. No rules prescribing a different criterion in respect of the value of quoted stocks and shares have been brought to our notice...." It is, thus, to be seen that all the while the Hon'....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should be treated as part of the statute. In this connection, reference may be made to the following observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone AIR 1981 SC 711 : ".. A statutory rule, while ever subordinate to the parent statute, is, other wise, to be treated as part of the statute and as effective. 'Rules made under the statute must be treated for all purposes of construction or obligation exactly as if they were in the Act and are to be of the same effect as if contained in the Act and are to be judicially noticed for all purposes of construction or obligation' (State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya [1961] 2 SCR 679 at p. 702 : (AIR 1961 SC 751) ; (See also Maxwell : Interpretation of Statutes,....