1994 (4) TMI 102

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the self-occupied property of the assessee situated at House No. 79, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh is to be valued as per the provisions contained in r. 1BB of the WT Rules or not. 2. Brief facts of the case are these. The assessee purchased the above property in February, 1982 for a sum of Rs. 9,05,000. In the returns of net wealth, however, the assessee showed the value of this property at Rs. 4,4....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld be unfair and$inequitous if the value of the property was to be taken at a figure less than what had been paid by the assessee as purchase price. 4. Shri D.S. Gupta, the learned counsel for the assessee, submitted that r. 1BB of the WT Rules was mandatory. Inviting our attention to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT (1994) 118 CTR (SC) 125 : 119 Taxation ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... have carefully considered the rival submissions as also the facts of the case. Valuation of properties has been made as stipulated in s. 7 of the WT Act. In our opinion, r. 1BB is mandatory. The learned Departmental Representative has not pointed out as to why the exceptions contained in sub-cl. (5) of r. 1BB should take the case out of the ambit of the said rule. The learned CWT(A) has also gone....