9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of shares of Renwick & Co. (P.) Ltd. 2. Inclusion of uncashed dividends in net wealth computation. Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation of Shares of Renwick & Co. (P.) Ltd.: The central issue pertains to the valuation of shares held by the assessees in Renwick & Co. (P.) Ltd. for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, and 1959-60. The Wealth-tax Officer initially adopted the break-up value method, fixing the share values at Rs. 21.85, Rs. 23.3, and Rs. 27.2 for the respective years. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (A.A.C.) adjusted these values to Rs. 19.08, Rs. 19.53, and Rs. 20.47 after considering certain deductions. However, the A.A.C. ultimately accepted the face value of Rs. 10 per share due to the significant difficulties in remitting profits from Pakistan to India, which affected the company's ability to pay dividends. The Tribunal upheld the A.A.C.'s decision, considering the restrictions on remittances from Pakistan and the resultant inability to pay dividends as material factors. The Tribunal found that these factors would depress the value of the shares and deter potential buyers, thus justifying the valuation at face value. The court affirmed this view, noting that the break-up value method is generally reserved for exceptional circumstances or when a company is ripe for liquidation. The yield method, which considers the actual returns to shareholders, is the preferred approach. Given the company's inability to remit profits and pay dividends, the face value of Rs. 10 per share was deemed appropriate and not unreasonably low. 2. Inclusion of Uncashed Dividends in Net Wealth Computation: The second issue relates to whether uncashed dividends declared by Renwick & Co. (P.) Ltd. but not received by the assessees should be included in their net wealth computation for the assessment year 1959-60. The Wealth-tax Officer included these amounts, arguing that once dividends are declared, they become debts receivable by the shareholders. However, the A.A.C. and the Tribunal excluded these amounts, considering the restrictions on remittances from Pakistan, which prevented the actual receipt of dividends. The Tribunal noted that the declaration of dividends was conditional upon the remittance of profits from Pakistan, and until this condition was met, the dividends did not constitute a debt receivable by the shareholders. The court agreed with this view, emphasizing that a conditional declaration of dividends does not create an enforceable debt. The amounts represented by the uncashed dividend warrants were not debts payable to or receivable by the assessees on the relevant valuation date and, therefore, should not be included in the net wealth computation. Conclusion: The court upheld the Tribunal's decisions on both issues. The valuation of shares at face value was justified due to the significant remittance restrictions and resultant inability to pay dividends. Similarly, the uncashed dividends, being conditional and not actually received, were rightly excluded from the net wealth computation. The questions were answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessees, with the revenue directed to pay the costs of the reference.
|
