9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (2) TMI 310X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, referring the following question for answer in R. A. Nos. 343 and 344/JP/88 (arising out of W. T. A. Nos. 28 and 29/JP/88) pertaining to the assessment year 1982-83 : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in M/s. Krishna Mills ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Learned counsel for the Revenue has submitted that the reference sought to be adjudicated has already been considered by the Supreme Court in case title Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT reported in [1994] 207 ITR 1 (SC); AIR 1994 SC 1355. Among other issues the following issue was also considered by the apex court which reads as under (page 12) : "Whether the Valuation Officer is bound by rule 1D wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to be deducted from the market value determined ?" 6. To summarise the judgment of the court, the apex court in paragraph 41, held as under (page 34) : "We summarise our conclusions thus : (1) Rule 1D is perfectly valid and effective. The rule has to be followed in every case where unquoted equity shares of a company (other than an investment company or a managing agency company) have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id that rule 1D is not mandatory or that it need not be followed. (4) Sub-clause (a) of clause (i) and sub-clause (e) of clause (ii) have to be read and understood in the manner indicated in this judgment hereinabove. (5) An assessee holding shares in a company whose assets comprise wholly or partly of agricultural land, is not entitled to exclude such shares from his wealth." 7. The two judgme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
