9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the principle decided in the case of CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan. 2. Valuation of unquoted shares in accordance with rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957. Analysis: 1. The assessee contended that the valuation of shares should be based on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadeo Jalan and the decision of the Bombay High Court in another case. The WTO rejected this argument and valued the unquoted shares based on rule 1D. On appeal, the AAC considered various valuation methods and directed the valuation of shares based on a registered valuer's report. The revenue challenged this decision, arguing that rule 1D is mandatory and should be followed. The counsel for the assessee relied on various legal precedents and expert opinions to support the AAC's decision. The tribunal upheld the AAC's order, emphasizing the factors determining share value as per the Supreme Court and Calcutta High Court decisions. 2. The revenue contended that rule 1D should be followed for valuing unquoted equity shares. The Bombay High Court's decision in a related case was cited to support the argument that rule 1D is directory, not mandatory. The tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that rule 1D is one of several methods for share valuation, and upheld the AAC's decision to value the shares based on a registered valuer's report. The tribunal dismissed the appeals by the revenue, affirming the AAC's order. This detailed analysis covers the issues of interpreting legal principles in share valuation and the application of rule 1D in valuing unquoted shares, providing a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.
|
