Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding

🚨 Important Update for Our Users

We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.

⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59

After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.

If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know via our feedback form , with specific details, so we can address them promptly.

  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Wealth-tax Wealth-tax + HC Wealth-tax - 1994 (2) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password



 

1994 (2) TMI 20 - HC - Wealth-tax

Issues:
1. Validity of quashing Commissioner of Wealth-tax's order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Justification of Wealth-tax Officer's failure to consider the rise in market value of plant and machinery.

Analysis:
The High Court of Gujarat addressed the first issue concerning the validity of quashing the Commissioner of Wealth-tax's order under section 25(2) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The case involved the assessment years 1971-72 to 1976-77, where the assessee, a partner in a textile firm, had not considered the appreciation in value of the firm's machinery while returning his interest in the firm. The Commissioner set aside the Wealth-tax Officer's orders, directing a revaluation of the machinery due to a perceived steep rise in market value. However, the Tribunal found the Wealth-tax Officer justified in not referring the matter to the Valuation Officer, as there was no evidence supporting the assumption of a significant price increase. The Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing the lack of material to prove a rise exceeding 20% as required by rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Consequently, the Court answered Question No. 1 in favor of the assessee, holding the Commissioner's order invalid.

Moving to the second issue, the Court's decision on Question No. 1 rendered Question No. 2 unnecessary for an answer. Since the Tribunal's decision was upheld regarding the lack of substantial evidence supporting a significant increase in machinery value, the Court did not delve into the justification for the Wealth-tax Officer's oversight. Ultimately, the Court disposed of the reference with no costs awarded, concluding the judgment.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates