9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that s. 40(4) of the Finance Act, 1983 excluded application of s. 7(1) and r. 1BB made thereunder. He accordingly assessed this property at Rs. 19,48,000 as determined by the Valuation Officer as against Rs. 6,43,300 returned by the assessee. 3. On appeal, the CWT(A) found that the difference between the specified area and the built-up area would be 0.17 per cent i.e., less than 5 per cent if a pavement is taken into account and 18.29 per cent i.e., less than 20 per cent if the pavement is ignored and yet in either case the provisions of r.1BB would have to be applied in making the valuation. He also agreed with the assessee that s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 did not exclude the operation of r. 1BB and accordingly directed the Asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, we are of the opinion that these appeals are not maintainable. Sec. 3 of the WT Act, 1957 created a charge of WT on the net wealth of every individual, HUF and company. However, s. 13 of the Finance Act, 1960 stated, "Notwithstanding anything contained in the WT Act, 1957 (27 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the WT Act), no tax shall be charged in respect of the net wealth of a company for any financial year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1960." Subsequently, s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983 revived the levy in the following manner : "S. 40 Revival of levy of WT in the case of closely-held companies.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in s. 13 of the Finance Act, 1960 (13 of 1960), relating to exemption of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alue shall be estimated by the WTO. Merely because sub-s. (4) does not refer to rules made under the Act, it cannot be said that those rules will become irrelevant when the valuation is made by the WTO under s. 40(4) of the Finance Act, 1983 while operating under the provisions of the WTA which has been revived by that section and which takes along with it the rules in force. Moreover, sub-s. (5) of s. 40 specifically excludes the operation of sub-s.(2)(a) of s.7 besides s.5 and s.45(d). if Parliament intended that s. 7(1) or the rules made thereunder should also be ignored, nothing prevented the listing of those provisions also in sub-s. (5) of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. The clear exclusion of one sub-section of s.7, therefore, is an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ludes a duty to be impartial and not to discriminate on unacceptable grounds. We find that the Revenue did not dispute the proposition that r. 1BB applies to a company as in the case of B.P. Indian Agencies Joint Enterprises Ltd. the only point in dispute was whether standard rent should be taken as the net maintainable rent for the purpose of r. 1BB in assessing the value of the property belonging to a company. In the present case, the Commissioner(A) in his very elaborate order has referred to this case which was cited by the assessee and also to the circulars of the CBDT explaining the provisions and operation of s. 40 of the Finance Act, 1983. In the circumstances, the direction given by the Commissioner to file an appeal in the case of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
