2001 PLP 2536 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus T.S. SANTHANAM (HUF) and others
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2536 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 575 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, J |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus T.S. SANTHANAM (HUF) and others |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax ‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2536 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax ‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2536 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 575 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hegde and Y. K. Sabharwal, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2536 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus T.S. SANTHANAM (HUF) and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- K.N. Shnkla, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeals from the judgment and order, dated December 1, 1988, of the Madras High Court in Tax Cases Nos.256 to 263 of 1985). ‑‑‑‑Valuation‑‑‑Unquoted share‑‑‑Balance sheet of company‑‑‑Advance tax shown as liability‑‑‑Should be deducted from tax payable with reference to book profits in determining whether provision for tax excessive‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, 1957, R.1 D, Expln. 11 & (ii)(e). For the purpose of computing the intrinsic value of unquoted shares under rule 1 D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, the amount of advance tax paid by the company and shown on the assets side of its balance -sheet should be deducted from the tax payable, in determining whether the provision for tax was in excess over the tax payable with reference to book profits. Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) applied. L.G. Balakrishnan v. CWT (1988) 173 ITR 266 (Mad.) held no longer good law. Respondents: Ex parse.
Judgment & Decree
Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) applied. L.G. Balakrishnan v. CWT (1988) 173 ITR 266 (Mad.) held no longer good law. K.N. Shnkla, Senior Advocate (K.C. Kaushik, B.V.B. Das and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Respondents: Ex parse. The assessee has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance. The question before the High Court at the behest of the Revenue read thus: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the 'Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for purposes of computation of the intrinsic value of unquoted shares under rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, the amount of advance tax paid by the company and shown on the assets side of the balance‑sheet should not be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provision for tax was in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto within the meaning of clause (ii)(e) of the Explanation to the said rule ? The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee relying upon the decision in L.G. Balakrishnan v. CWT (1988). 173 ITR
266. That decision is no longer good law. The question is now governed by the decision of this Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR
1. The civil appeals are, therefore, allowed and the question is answered in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs. M.B.A./962/FC Appeals allowed.