9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Valuation of unquoted equity shares under rule 1D of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Interpretation of rule 1D as mandatory or directory. Application of yield method for valuation. Precedents set by various court judgments. Interaction between rule 1D and section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-B revolves around the valuation of unquoted equity shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Initially, the WTO valued the shares at Rs. 2,81,200, but the AAC directed the valuation to be done using the yield method, resulting in a value of nil. The department appealed this decision, arguing that rule 1D is mandatory. They cited precedents like Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT and CWT v. Mamman Varghese. Conversely, the assessee contended that rule 1D is directory, relying on judgments such as CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia and Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia v. CWT. The Tribunal considered the nature of rule 1D, emphasizing that it has been established as a mandatory provision in previous cases, as seen in the judgments of WTO v. Seth Sudhir Kumar Modi and WTO v. Mrs. Ritu Nanda. The Tribunal noted that the principles for share valuation set by the Supreme Court were superseded by the enactment of rule 1D, which provided a specific framework for valuation. Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted the interpretation of section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act by the Supreme Court in Pandit Lakshmi Kant Jha v. CWT, emphasizing the importance of rules made under the Act in determining asset valuation. Further, the Tribunal discussed the interaction between rule 1D and section 7(1), stating that rules must prevail over statutory provisions according to established principles of statutory interpretation. They referenced the judgments of the Allahabad and Kerala High Courts in support of this interpretation. The Tribunal also clarified that rules framed under an Act should be considered part of the statute, as per the observations in State of Tamil Nadu v. Hind Stone. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that rule 1D is mandatory and must prevail over the provisions of section 7(1). They rejected the argument that the assessee could escape the application of rule 1D in this case. The Tribunal reinstated the valuation done by the WTO, setting aside the AAC's decision to use the yield method. Consequently, the appeal was allowed in favor of the department.
|
