Skip to content


Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Gopal Krishna SinghaniA. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.T.R. No. 85 of 1974
Reported in(1978)7CTR(All)0053A
AppellantCommissioner of Wealth Tax
RespondentGopal Krishna SinghaniA.
Cases ReferredKanpur vs. Shripat Singhania
Excerpt:
- - since the department has failed to file the paper book of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs......on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the tribunal was justified in approving the assessees method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the wealth tax authorities as per the provision of r. 1-d of the wealth tax rules ?'this very question was referred by the tribunal in respect of shripat singhania, kanpur, for the assessment year 1968-69. a division bench of this court in a decision reported in the commissioner of wealth tax, kanpur vs. shripat singhania, kanpur answered the question as follows :'the tribunal was not justified in approving the assessees method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares which was not in accordance with r. 1-d of the wealth tax rules.'2. we have heard learned counsel and we do not agree that.....
Judgment:

Satish Chandra, J. - For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the Tribunal has referred the following question of law for our opinion :

'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in approving the assessees method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the Wealth Tax Authorities as per the provision of R. 1-D of the Wealth Tax Rules ?'

This very question was referred by the Tribunal in respect of Shripat Singhania, Kanpur, for the assessment year 1968-69. A Division Bench of this Court in a decision reported in the Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur vs. Shripat Singhania, Kanpur answered the question as follows :

'The Tribunal was not justified in approving the assessees method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares which was not in accordance with R. 1-D of the Wealth Tax Rules.'

2. We have heard learned counsel and we do not agree that the aforesaid Division Bench decision of this Court requires reconsideration. In view of that decision, the question referred to us is answered by saying that the Tribunal was not justified in approving the assessees method of valuation in respect of unquoted shares in preference to the valuation adopted by the Wealth Tax Authorities which was not in accordance with R. 1-D of the Wealth Tax Rules. Since the Department has failed to file the paper book of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //