Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, JALANDHAR versus SH. RACHPAL SINGH.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Jalandhar v. Sh. Rachpal Singh. - WTR-6-1992 [2006] RD-P&H 7395 (18 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

W.T.R. Nos.6 to 14 of 1992

Date of decision: 13.09.2006

Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Jalandhar

---Applicant

Vs.

Sh. Rachpal Singh.

-----Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate

for the respondent.

-----

ORDER:

Following questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar, arising out of its order dated 22.11.1991 in respect of assessment years 1980-81 to 1988-89:-

1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing the Assessing officer to accept the version of the assessee for determination of valuation of shares on the basis of yield method, when the same is required to be evaluated in accordance with Rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, which is mandatory?"

2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to determine the value of the shares of companies held by the assessee on yield method basis ignoring the binding decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Sh. Ashok Oswal in 148 ITR 620?"

3. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was legally justified in not following the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court which fully covers the issue involved?" W.T.R. Nos.6 to14 of 1992

We find that the questions referred above, are concluded in favour of the revenue by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania and others v. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) and others AIR 1994 SC 1355, wherein it was held that Rule 1 D of the Rules has to be followed in every case where unquoted equity shares of a company (other than investment company or a managing agency company) have to be valued.

Following above judgment, the question is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.

( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

JUDGE

September 13, 2006 ( RAJESH BINDAL )

ashwani JUDGE

Pag

e


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.