TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1984 (6) TMI 94
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uity shares in Orient Steel (P.) Ltd. and Ajay Paper Mills for the purpose of computation of the net wealth of the assessee. 2. In the first appeal the assessee filed a return declaring the value of each share in Orient Steel (P.) Ltd. at Rs. 16.36 per share. Then he revised it to Rs. 4.99 per share on the yield basis as according to him, the shares were not quoted in any stock exchange and the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd appeal before us. 3. We have heard the representatives of the parties at length in these appeals. A number of authorities were cited by the representative of the department for the proposition that the value of these shares should be computed in accordance with rule 1D. For example, reference was made to CWT v. Smt. Chandrakala Lal [1978] 111 ITR 185 (Cal.), which lays down that the proper met....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee's method of valuation of unquoted equity shares which were not in accordance with the Rules. Lastly, reference may be made to CWT v. Mamman Varghese [1983] 139 ITR 351 (Ker.), for the proposition that rule 1D was mandatory and its provision had to be followed in determining the value of the unquoted equity shares of companies for wealth-tax purpose. 4. On behalf of the assessee reliance was ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ia decided by the Supreme Court. 5. After carefully considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to agree with the assessee. So far as the applicability of the Rules is concerned, notwithstanding the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia, the Special Bench of the Tribunal at Delhi has already held in Biju Patnaik v. WTO [1982] ....