9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (11) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1-D of the WT Rules and the only dispute between the assessee and the Department in this connection was as go whether in computing the value of the said shares under Rule 1-D, the amount of the provision for taxation shown in the balance sheet of the concerned company material for each of the valuation dates should be reduced by the amount of advance-tax appearing on the assets said of the balance-sheet on those dates which undisputedly was required to be excluded from the total of the assets in arriving at the bareakup value under r. 1-D of the WT Rules. According to the Deptl. Authorities, the amount shown as provision for taxation in the balance-sheet of the company concerned relevant for the determination of the value on the concerned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the years involved. 6. It was urged at the hearing that the additional ground could not be fixed earlier because the Supreme Court decision came only recently and since the Supreme Court declared its law finally, the assessee may be allowed to raise this ground even though before the Deptl. Authorities, the dispute proceeded on the common stand that r. 1-D would be applicable for the determination of value of the shares in question. It is also pointed out that according to the Bombay High Court decisions in Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia vs. CWT WT Ref. No. 10 of 1973 published in Bombay Chartered Accountants Society's Compilation. No. 4 of 1979 r. 1-D of the WT Rules is not mandatory and is merely directory. It is further submitted that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter in dispute before the Deptl. Authorities was a question of valuation of shares, the assessee is entitled to take any additional ground on the point and rely on the like decision of the Supreme Court. He also made it clear that what is agitated before us is a question of principle and not with the actual figure and therefore even if in any particular year the determination of the value according to the method canvassed in the additional ground results in higher figure, the assessee has no objection and will abide by the same. 8. On the alternative contention the Deptl. Rep. concedes that the uniform view taken in a number of order so the Tribunal is in favour of the assessee. 9. Having considered the facts of the rival contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 CTR (SC) 366 : (1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC) and has no objection even if the determination results in any particular year in the value of the shares being higher than that arrived at by Rule 1D method. Moreover, this question as to the determination of the value raised by the assessee in the additional ground resulting in a higher figure than what may be arrived at according to Rule 1D is not relevant or material in considering the relief prayed for any the assessee in this additional ground which is that in determining the shares held by it the proper and correct method should be applied as laid down by the Supreme Court. Any such increase or decrease in the value so arrived at according to the proper method, is merely, a consequence of the ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
