2001 PLP 2451 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SITA RAM JINDAL
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2451 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 111 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SITA RAM JINDAL |
| Primary Law | Wealth‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2451 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2451 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 111 bench comprising: S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2451 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SITA RAM JINDAL). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order, dated June 3, 1991, of the Karnataka High Court in T.R.C. Nos.50 and 51 of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Valuation of assets‑‑‑Valuation of unquoted equity shares‑‑‑Rule ID is mandatory‑‑‑Valuation must be made as per provisions of R. 1D of Wealth Tax Rules‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, R.1D‑‑‑[CWT v. S. Jindal (1992) 194 ITR 539 reversed]. Rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, is mandatory. The valuation of unquoted equity shares for purposes of wealth tax has to be made as per the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules. Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) fol. CWT v. S. Jindal (1992) 194 ITR 539 reversed. Respondent: Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
CWT v. S. Jindal (1992) 194 ITR 539 reversed. M.L. Verma, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates with him) for Appellant. Respondent: Ex parte. Four questions were before the High Court (see (1992) 194 ITR 539 (Kar.) in a reference under section 27 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the revenue. They read thus (page 540): "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal in right in law in holding that, in valuing shares under rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, the entire provision for taxation appearing on the liabilities side of the balance‑sheet should be deducted from the value of the assets? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in approving the assessee's method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the Wealth Tax Officer as per the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is justified in law in adopting the market value 'of the unquoted enquiry shares after 1967 ignoring the provisions of rule 1 D? (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in adopting the market value of the unquoted shares of Jindal Aluminium Ltd. at Rs.100 per share as against the value determined by the Wealth Tax Officer?" The High Court answered the first question in favour of the Revenue. It held that the provisions of rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules were directory and, therefore, answered the second and third questions against the Revenue. In its view, the fourth question did not call for any specific answer. This Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR I has taken a contrary view of the provisions of rule 1D. Therefore, the second and third questions must be answered in favour of the Revenue. Once those questions are answered in favour of the Revenue, it follows, as a matter of course, that the fourth question must be answered, and it must be answered in favour of the Revenue. Accordingly, the second, third and fourth questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The appeals are allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. M.B.A./942/FC Order set aside.