9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation Method of Property 2. Exemption of Shares under Wealth Tax Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Valuation Method of Property: The primary issue in all the appeals concerns the valuation of the property situated at D-34, Greater Kailash, New Delhi. Initially, the property was under the personal occupation of the assessee until the assessment year 1968-69, after which one floor was let out. The assessee contended that the property should be valued using the yield method rather than the land and building method, referencing the Calcutta High Court decision in Sudesh Chandra Talwar vs. CWT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 310, where the rental method was deemed the best method for such property valuation. The revenue opposed this submission, arguing that valuation should reflect realistic figures, pointing out that the property was sold in January 1976 for Rs. 6,50,000. They suggested that working back from this sale price would validate the valuations adopted by the AAC of Wealth Tax for the relevant years. The Tribunal, after examining the submissions and facts, concluded that the case is covered by the Full Bench decision in Biju Patnaik's case, which mandates that self-occupied property and residential property let on hire should be valued in accordance with Rule 1BB. Consequently, the Tribunal directed that the property value should be recomputed by the WTO using Rule 1BB, with the stipulation that if the recomputed value is less than the value shown in the assessee's return, the figure returned by the assessee should be adopted. 2. Exemption of Shares under Wealth Tax Act: The second issue pertains to the exemption for shares held by the assessee as an industrial undertaking for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1974-75, under clause (xx) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act. This clause exempts the value of equity shares held in certain companies from wealth tax if certain conditions are met. The assessee claimed exemption for shares in M/s Indo Japan Steels Limited, arguing that these shares formed part of the initial issue and that the company met the criteria outlined in clause (d) of section 45 of the Wealth Tax Act. The WTO rejected this claim, stating that the company did not meet the conditions of clause (d) because it acquired machinery from M/s Grand Smithy Works, including previously used furnace plant, factory building, and other items. The AAC upheld the WTO's decision, noting that the company had acquired old machinery previously used in another business, thus not fulfilling the conditions of section 45(d). The Tribunal, upon careful consideration, emphasized that the specific language of the statute must be followed. It noted that while the provisions of section 80J of the Income Tax Act and section 45(d) of the Wealth Tax Act are similar, they are not identical, and each Act has its distinct field of operation. The Tribunal highlighted differences in the provisions, such as the absence of certain provisos and explanations in the Wealth Tax Act that are present in the Income Tax Act. Given that the assessee-company was formed by transferring building, machinery, and plant from M/s Grand Smithy Works, the Tribunal concluded that the exemption under clause (xx) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Wealth Tax Act was not applicable. Therefore, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for exemption. Conclusion: The appeals for the assessment years 1964-65 to 1967-68 are allowed in full, while the appeals for the assessment years 1968-69 to 1974-75 are allowed in part.
|
