1992 (7) TMI 110

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... mber, 1990 for the assessment year 1989-90. 2. The solitary question for consideration before us is the valuation of the unquoted equity shares. The Assessing Officer had valued the shares under rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules without applying the ratio of the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of CWT v. Pratap Bhogilal [1987] 167 ITR 501. This did not satisfy the assessee, who went i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ext of rule 1D, was no more applicable. He accordingly restored the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the value of the shares be redetermined in the light of the provision of Schedule III without applying the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court. 3. The learned counsel for the assessee assailed before us that part of the impugned order, where .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nge in effect was intended by the Legislature in making this statutory rearrangement. We see no reason to take a view that such rearrangement could have possibly involved any change of effect in the ratio of the aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court. We are thus inclined to accept the contention of the assessee that in making valuation even under Rule 11 of Schedule II of the Wealth-tax Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X