9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res of Star Chemicals (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd., settled by the assessee on two family trusts, namely, Subhash R. Shah Family Trust and Sanjay R. Shah Family Trust. The assessee had claimed before the GTO that the valuation of these shares should be taken at Rs. 31.78 per share on yield basis, which was rejected by the GTO, who held that the value of the shares on the basis of break-up value worked out to Rs. 96.31 per share. He, therefore, adopted the said value to determine the value of the shares for the purpose of gift-tax assessment. 3. On appeal, the CGT (Appeals), on an examination of the authorities relied on by the ld. Counsel, viz CWT vs. Mahadeo Jalan 1972 CTR (SC) 395 : (1980) 86 ITR 621 (SC), CGT vs. Kusumben D Mahadevia (1980) 14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and reasonable and directed the GTO to adopt the value of gifted shares at Rs. 31.78 per share, instead of Rs. 96.31 per share, and allow consequential relief to the assessee. The revenue feels aggrieved by this order and hence the present appeal to the Tribunal. 4. Before us, shri C. Perianayagam, the ld. departmental representative, relied on the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench reported in (1982) 1 ITD 738 (Bom-Trib) (First Gto vs. XYZ), and submitted that in view of this decision of the Appellate Tribunal, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was erroneous and should, therefore, be reversed. To a specific question put by us, the ld. departmental representative stated that the revenue had no other reason to reject t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t mandatory. The ld. counsel referred to s. 15(6) of the GT Act which empowered the GTO to refer to question of valuation to a Valuation Officer in the circumstances specified therein and pointed our that it was not the case of the revenue that all those circumstances obtained in the present case, to justify the rejection of the approved valuer's report produced by the assessee before the GTO. The ld. counsel relied on paragraph 7 of the order of the Appellate Tribunal in the case of First GTO vs. XYZ (1982) 1 ITD 738 (Bom-Trib) relied on by the ld. departmental representative to point out the distinction between the said case and the facts of the present case and therefore contended that the said decision would not stand in the way of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
