9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Valuation of unquoted shares of private limited companies for wealth tax purposes - Treatment of advance tax paid under the Income-tax Act, 1961, shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet in determining provision for taxation. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the valuation of unquoted shares of a private limited company for wealth tax assessment. The main contention was whether the advance tax paid under the Income-tax Act, 1961, and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet could be deducted from the provision for tax payable when valuing the shares. The assessee claimed that such deduction should not be made, while the Wealth-tax Officer rejected this claim. The Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) directed the valuation without deducting the advance tax. The Tribunal, relying on a previous court decision, upheld the Commissioner's order. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous judgment by the Gujarat High Court, which held that advance tax paid should not be deducted when valuing equity shares for wealth tax purposes. However, the High Court revisited this issue in light of a Supreme Court ruling in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1. The Supreme Court clarified that rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, must be followed in valuing unquoted equity shares and no deductions, including advance tax, are permissible. The Court emphasized that rule 1D was exhaustive on the subject and no deductions for various items, including provision for taxation, were allowed. The Supreme Court's interpretation of rule 1D and Explanation II(ii)(e) highlighted that advance tax paid should not be considered a liability for valuation purposes. The Court explained that the advance tax, although shown on the balance-sheet, had already been debited from the company's profits and should not be treated as a liability. This view aligned with judgments from other High Courts and differed from the Gujarat High Court's earlier stance in CWT v. Ashok K Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46. Ultimately, the High Court, following the Supreme Court's guidance, ruled against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in directing the valuation without deducting the advance tax paid, as per the provisions of rule 1D. Therefore, the question referred to the court was answered in the negative, upholding the Revenue's position. The case was disposed of accordingly, with no costs awarded.
|
