1998 (9) TMI 8 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules regarding valuation of unquoted equity shares of private limited companies.
2. Treatment of advance tax paid shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet of the company while working out the value of equity shares on the break-up value method.

Analysis:
1. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the valuation of unquoted equity shares of private limited companies as per rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, as interpreted in a previous case. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the Revenue based on the decision in a specific case. However, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, which clarified that rule 1D must be followed for valuing unquoted equity shares and that no deductions, including advance tax, are permissible under this rule. The Supreme Court held that rule 1D is exhaustive on the subject, and no deductions for capital gains tax or other liabilities should be made while valuing unquoted equity shares.

2. The dispute revolved around the treatment of advance tax paid, which was shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet of the company when determining the value of equity shares using the break-up value method. The Supreme Court, in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, clarified that advance tax paid should not be considered a liability for valuation purposes. The Court explained that the advance tax paid is not an asset but is required to be shown as such in the balance-sheet. The Court emphasized that clause (i)(a) of Explanation II removes the advance tax amount from the list of assets for valuation under rule 1D. Additionally, the Court highlighted that if the advance tax paid is shown as a liability in the provision for taxation, it should not be treated as a liability for valuation purposes. The Supreme Court's interpretation differed from the previous view taken by the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46.

In conclusion, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, the High Court answered the question referred to it in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee. The references were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.