9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (9) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nal has referred the following common question for the opinion of this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 : "Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing that the value of unquoted equity shares of private limited companies be worked out as per rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh [1981] ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thereto within the meaning of clause (ii)(e) of Explanation II to rule 1D of the said Rules. The dispute centres around the treatment to be given to the advance tax paid, shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet of the company while working out the value of the equity shares on break-up value method. At the time of making of references, this question was pending before the apex court. Now, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty are admissible. It was held that rule 1D was exhaustive on the subject. The Supreme Court while construing the provisions of the said rule 1D read with Explanation II(ii)(e) of the said Rules held that, truly speaking, the advance tax paid is not really an asset, but, the pro forma of balance-sheet in Schedule VI to the Companies Act requires it to be shown as such. It, was held that what clau ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fered from the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46.
In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1 the question referred to this court is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
