TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 102X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andigarh 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. 4,40,000 on the basis of r. 1BB. The Assessing Officer, however, took the price actually ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 112 he submitted that rules framed under s. 7 of the WT Act were mandatory and retros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 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 into this aspect of the matter and come to the conclusion that the case falls within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
