1994 (7) TMI 67 - HC - Wealth-tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957.
2. Deduction of tax liability on enhanced compensation not provided in the balance-sheet.
3. Inclusion of enhanced compensation in the net wealth of the company for valuation of unquoted shares.

Comprehensive, Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957:
The primary issue was whether Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, is applicable in determining the market value of unquoted shares. The Tribunal had held that Rule 1D was inapplicable as it conflicted with the substantive provisions of the Wealth-tax Act, including the charging section 3. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1 established that Rule 1D is mandatory and must be applied unreservedly. The court observed that Rule 1D prescribes a straightforward method for valuing unquoted equity shares, and the Wealth-tax Officer is bound to follow it without exception. Thus, the court concluded that Rule 1D is mandatory and must be applied as prescribed.

2. Deduction of Tax Liability on Enhanced Compensation Not Provided in the Balance-Sheet:
The Tribunal had allowed the deduction of tax liability on enhanced compensation, even though it was not shown in the balance-sheet of the company. The court, however, disagreed with this view. It held that for the purpose of Rule 1D, the balance-sheet figures are sacrosanct, and only the adjustments specified in Explanation II to the rule can be made. Since the tax liability on the enhanced compensation was not provided for in the balance-sheet and there was no provision in Explanation II for such an adjustment, the court concluded that the tax liability could not be deducted while computing the value of unquoted shares.

3. Inclusion of Enhanced Compensation in the Net Wealth of the Company for Valuation of Unquoted Shares:
The issue was whether the enhanced compensation received by the companies should be included in the net wealth for the purpose of valuing unquoted shares. The Tribunal had included the enhanced compensation in the net wealth but allowed for the deduction of the tax liability on it. The court held that the enhanced compensation, as reflected in the balance-sheet, must be included in the net wealth of the company while applying Rule 1D. The court emphasized that the balance-sheet figures are final, and no further adjustments, other than those specified in Explanation II, can be made. Therefore, the enhanced compensation must be included in the net wealth without any deduction for tax liability.

Conclusion:
The court answered the questions referred in each of the references as follows:

Wealth-tax References Nos. 87 to 96 of 1978:
1. Question 1: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
2. Question 2: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
3. Question 3: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Wealth-tax References Nos. 101 to 106 of 1982:
1. Question 1: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
2. Question 2: Answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Wealth-tax References Nos. 142 to 147 of 1983:
1. Question: Answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.

The court concluded that there would be no order as to costs.