2001 PLP 2626 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SHILABEN FAMILY TRUST and others.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2626 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 248 I T R 183 |
| Bench Members | S. P. Bharucha, Y. K. Sabharwal and Ms. Ruma Pal, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SHILABEN FAMILY TRUST and others. |
| Primary Law | Wealth tax‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2626 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Wealth tax‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2626 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 248 I T R 183 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 2626 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SHILABEN FAMILY TRUST and others.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, S. Rajappa, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate with him for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order, dated November 20, 1989, of the Gujarat High Court in Wealth Tax References Nos.8, 9 and 10 of 1989). ‑‑‑‑ Valuation of assets‑‑‑Valuation of unquoted equity shares‑‑‑Rule 1D is mandatory‑‑‑Valuation must be done as per provisions of R.1D‑‑‑Amount of advance tax paid‑‑‑To be deducted from provisions for taxation if shown as part of liability‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act. 1957‑‑‑Indian Wealth Tax Act, Rule, 1957, R.1D. 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. The amount of advance tax paid is to be deducted from the provisions for taxation, if shown as part of liability. Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1995 PTD 997 fol. CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46 (Guj.) ref. Respondent: Ex parse.
Judgment & Decree
Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1995 PTD 997 fol. CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46 (Guj.) ref. Dr. V. Gauri Shankar, Senior Advocate (Rajiv Nanda, S. Rajappa, Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocate with him for Appellant. Respondent: Ex parse. The High Court answered the following question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee: "Whether the Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing that the value of unquoted shares of Cadila Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. be worked but as per rule 1D of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46?" It relied upon its earlier judgment in the case of CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46 (Guj.). The issue raised by the question was considered by this Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1995 PTD 997 and a contrary view was taken. . Accordingly, following the said judgment of the Court, these civil appeals are allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. No order as to costs. M.B.A./944/FC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals allowed.