Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.25 seconds)Section 17 in The Wealth-Tax Act, 1957 [Entire Act]
Navnitlal Ambalal And Ors. vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 10 March, 1975
D.V. Bapat [1974] 96 ITR 1 (Bom), Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen and Navanitlal Ambalal v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 735 (SC) the procedure for valuation as laid down by the Board and such procedure as was operative at the relevant time, would be binding on the revenue and the courts can look into them. The procedure which was current in the instant case was the procedure as laid down by the 1st circular and not the second one. The said second circular being prospective and not retrospective had no application in this case. As such the purported initiation of the proceeding on the basis thereof or for the violation of the same, if any or if at all, was incompetent. Since the petitioner has filed her statement of valuation of the concerned unquoted shares on the basis of the procedure and principles as indicated in the 1st circular, it cannot be said that there were laches of any kind on her part. As the petitioner was not covered or governed by the 2nd circular, the arguments of asset backing as advanced by Mr. Pal, in my view, would be of no avail or any assistance. There is also no doubt that the concerned shares were unquoted, and such fact was also duly intimated by the assessee. Thus, there were no laches or any negligent conduct on her part and since the shares are not admittedly quoted, it was not certainly possible for the assessee to furnish the market value of the shares and any demand on that point, by the officer concerned, would be unreasonable. I am of the view that when reasons are recorded, even though they are not required to be recorded, the courts will have to and they can consider such reasons as that would disclose the mind of the officer and the basis for the action under Section 17.
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Simon Carves Limited on 17 August, 1976
It was also contended by Mr. Pal that if the order as impeached is a legally correct order, then following the determinations in the case of CIT v. Simon Carves Ltd. no interference in this case need or should be made as the order in the instant case was legally correct.
Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. vs N. C. Upadhyaya And Another. Tata Iron & ... on 5 March, 1973
31. Section 7 of the said Act gives a guideline for determination of the value of assets and there are, excepting the circulars as mentioned hereinbefore, no rules for valuing the unquoted shares. Under Section 16 of the said Act read along with the determinations in the case of Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Kum.
Anandji Haridas & Co. (P.) Ltd vs S. P. Kushare, S. T. O. Nagpur & Ors on 28 September, 1967
Ltd. v. S.P. Kushare, STO , the WTO concerned would be entitled to act on informations. But the admitted facts of that case being different from the admitted facts of the present one, the determination as made therein would not hold good in this case.
Navnitlal C. Javeri vs K. K. Sen, Appellate Assistant ... on 28 October, 1964
D.V. Bapat [1974] 96 ITR 1 (Bom), Navnitlal C. Javeri v. K.K. Sen and Navanitlal Ambalal v. CIT [1976] 105 ITR 735 (SC) the procedure for valuation as laid down by the Board and such procedure as was operative at the relevant time, would be binding on the revenue and the courts can look into them. The procedure which was current in the instant case was the procedure as laid down by the 1st circular and not the second one. The said second circular being prospective and not retrospective had no application in this case. As such the purported initiation of the proceeding on the basis thereof or for the violation of the same, if any or if at all, was incompetent. Since the petitioner has filed her statement of valuation of the concerned unquoted shares on the basis of the procedure and principles as indicated in the 1st circular, it cannot be said that there were laches of any kind on her part. As the petitioner was not covered or governed by the 2nd circular, the arguments of asset backing as advanced by Mr. Pal, in my view, would be of no avail or any assistance. There is also no doubt that the concerned shares were unquoted, and such fact was also duly intimated by the assessee. Thus, there were no laches or any negligent conduct on her part and since the shares are not admittedly quoted, it was not certainly possible for the assessee to furnish the market value of the shares and any demand on that point, by the officer concerned, would be unreasonable. I am of the view that when reasons are recorded, even though they are not required to be recorded, the courts will have to and they can consider such reasons as that would disclose the mind of the officer and the basis for the action under Section 17.