1992 (2) TMI 15

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... court : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in holding that rules 1C and 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules are not mandatory and in directing the Wealth-tax Officer to value the assessee's ordinary, deferred and preference shares on yield basis ? The facts relating to this reference are that the assessee acquired shares of M/s. Bengal Water Proof Wo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... -tax (Appeals) observed that although the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal has held in a recent judgment that rule ID was directory, the Kerala High Court in CWT v. Mamman Varghese [1983] 139 ITR 351 and the Allahabad High Court in CWT V. Sripat Singhania [1978] 112 ITR 365 are in favour of treating the rule as mandatory. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as such confirmed the action of the W .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d preference shares of the assessee in Bengal Water Proof (1940) Ltd. on yield basis. " The question whether rule ID of the Wealth-tax Rules is mandatory or directory came up for consideration before this Bench in Matter No. 149 of 1987 ( CWT v. India Exchange Traders' Association [1992] 197 ITR 356 ) where judgment was delivered on March 21, 1991. In that case, it was held that rule ID was mand .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X