9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order directing that the value of the shares of Hapjan Purbat Tea Co. (P.) Ltd. and in respect of the assessee's holding should be valued as per the stock exchange quotation of the value of shares of the said private limited company when such shares were not regularly quoted in any stock exchange? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not accepting the appeal preferred by the appellant on the ground that the appellant could not have been able to show that the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner on the similar point in the case of another assessee, viz., Ra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he appeal of Ramgopal Mahesh Kumar decided on July 25, 1981. He also noted that the assessee belonged to the same group. Following the same line of reasoning, he held that the shares in the case of this assessee should also be valued in accordance with the quotations on the stock exchange. The same contention as noted above was reiterated by the Department but it was not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referring to its earlier order dated August 27, 1982, in the case of Smt. Sita Devi Saharia being W. T. A. No. 59 (Gau) of 1981 passed between the parties, and also in another connected appeal being W. T. A. No. 60 (Gau) of 1981, directed the Wealth-tax Officer to value the shares of Assam Forest Products (P.) Ltd. in accordance with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with reference to which the balance-sheet of the company is drawn up do not coincide, it cannot be said that rule 1D is not mandatory or that it need not be followed. (4) Sub-clause (a) of clause (i) and sub-clause (e) of clause (ii) have to be read and understood in the manner indicated in this judgment hereinabove. (5) An assessee holding shares in a company whose assets comprise wholly or partly of agricultural land, is not entitled to exclude such shares from his wealth." Following the same, we set aside the order dated March 31, 1989 (annexure "C"), as passed by the Tribunal and remand the matter as a whole for disposal in accordance with law and the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court. The reference is answered accordingly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
