CWT Vs V.M. RAO

Madras High Court 12 Aug 2002 Tax Case No''s. 951 to 953 of 1993 12 August 2002 (2002) 08 MAD CK 0184
Bench: Full Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Tax Case No''s. 951 to 953 of 1993 12 August 2002

Hon'ble Bench

R. Jayasimha Babu, J; K.P. Sivasubramaniam, J

Advocates

T.C.A. Ramanujam, for the Revenue Uttam Reddy, for the Assessee, for the Appellant;

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

R. Jayasimha Babu, J.

The matter in issue is valuation of shares in a Private Company. The Tribunal rendered its decision at a time when it did not have the benefit of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania and others Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central) and others, in which, it was held that rule 1B (rule 1D) of the Wealth Tax Rules is the sole basis for determining the value of such shares.

2. As the order of the Tribunal is not consistent with the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained, The valuation made by it is required to be modified to the extent required and to be in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania (supra).

3. We, therefore, remit the matters back to the Tribunal to re-do the valuation in accordance with rule 1B (rule 1D) of the Wealth Tax Rules.

From The Blog
Vodafone Idea’s AGR Relief: Government Freezes ₹87,695 Crore Dues, Eyes Investor Confidence
Jan
02
2026

Court News

Vodafone Idea’s AGR Relief: Government Freezes ₹87,695 Crore Dues, Eyes Investor Confidence
Read More
Delhi High Court: Father’s Duty to Maintain Minor Children Non-Negotiable, Even If Mother Earns More
Jan
02
2026

Court News

Delhi High Court: Father’s Duty to Maintain Minor Children Non-Negotiable, Even If Mother Earns More
Read More