9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (12) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lding that r. 1D of the WT Act is mandatory and not directory." 2. By status the assessee is an individual and the valuation date was31st March, 1980. The assessee owned 1424 equity shares of Gedore Tools (I) Pvt. Ltd. The said shares were valued at Rs. 276.89 per share in the statement of net wealth filed along with the return of wealth. In the revised computation the assessee took the value of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les. 3. This finding was contested by the assessee. On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on the ratios in the following cases: (a) in the case of CED vs. Mahadev Jalan 1972 CTR (SC) 395 : (1972) 86 ITR 621 (SC). (b) in the case of CGT vs. Kusum Ben D. Mahadevia (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 366 : (1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC) and (c) in the case of Swadeshi Mining and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (1979) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale of shares. Hence that case is also distinguishable. As regards the judgment of Bombay High Court reported at 124 ITR 799, I respectfully disagree with the same. In this connection, I have noticed that Kerala High Court in the case of CWT vs. Mamman Verghese 3 Taxman 456 held that the provisions of s. 7 and r. 1D are mandatory. Further in the cases reported at 117 ITR 443 and 119 ITR 258, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lf of the Revenue the orders of the authorities below were supported. 6. Rival submissions have been heard and considered. The assessee in the present case resides within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. The valuation dates of the assessee and the company are seen to be different. On the basis of those facts it is possible to say that the ratio in the case of Sharbati Devi Jhala ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
