Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 1984 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1984 (11) TMI 81 - AT - Income Tax

Issues:
1. Valuation of gold bond under section 5(1)(xii-a) of the WT Act for wealth-tax assessment.
2. Valuation of securities and shares under sections 5(1)(xvi-a) and 5(1)(xx) of the WT Act for wealth-tax assessment.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Valuation of Gold Bond
The appeal was filed by the Revenue challenging the direction of the WTO to include the value of a gold bond worth Rs. 32,656 under section 5(1)(xii-a) of the WT Act while valuing the assessee's interest in the firm of M/s Vepar. The assessee claimed exemption for the gold bond, which was rejected by the WTO. The AAC, relying on a Tribunal decision, directed the deduction of the amount in computing the value of the assessee's interest. The Revenue contended that the AAC was not justified in allowing the exemption. However, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, citing the Tribunal's previous decision and a recent Gujarat High Court decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the issue was covered by precedent and agreed with the view taken. Therefore, the decision of the AAC was upheld.

Issue 2: Valuation of Securities and Shares
The second ground of appeal involved the valuation of the assessee's interest in the firm M/s Avekash. The WTO computed the interest at Rs. 2,62,232, whereas the assessee declared it at Rs. 1,91,173. The difference arose because the WTO did not consider the value of shares and securities for exemption under sections 5(1)(xx) and 5(1)(xvi-a). The AAC allowed the exemption of Rs. 2,750 for shares and directed the WTO to consider the claim for securities, similar to the decision made for the firm M/s Vepar. The Revenue appealed this decision, but the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, citing the same reasons as in the first ground of appeal. Consequently, the decision of the AAC was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates