Partly allowed

The C.W.T.B.C-Vii. v. S.P. Godrej and Ors.

Bombay HC15 Jan 2009WTR/44/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court answered Question No. 1 regarding the use of balance sheets for market value determination by the assessee. Question No. 2 regarding the deduction of advance tax under Rule 1D was referred back to the Tribunal to consider the Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Hari Singhania Versus C.W.T.

What did the court decide?

Question No. 1 answered in affirmative for assessee; Question No. 2 remanded for fresh consideration.

The C.W.T.B.C-Vii. Vs S.P. Godrej and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

hvn

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 1998

¶5

The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Applicant

¶6

 Versus

¶7

 S.P. Godrej & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

 Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Applicant.

¶9

 Mr.A.K. Jasani and Mr. P.C.Tripathi for
 Respondent.

¶10

CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, &
R.S. MOHITE, JJ.
 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2009
P.C.

¶11

 . The tribunal has referred the following two

¶12

 questions :

¶13

 (1) Whether on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case and on the
 interpretation of section 7 of W.T. Act rad
 with Rule 1D the Tribunal is correct in law
 in holding that for the purpose of
 ascertaining the market value as on
 31.3.1979/31.3.80/31.3.81, the balance
 sheets of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.
 Pvt. Ltd. as on 31st March,
 1978/31.3.79/31.3.80 should be taken into

¶14

 consideration?

¶15

 (2) Whether on the facts and in the
 circumstances of the case the Hon’ble

¶16

 Tribunal was justified in holding that while
 valuing the unquoted equity shares of M/s.

¶17

 Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. under Rule
 1 D of the W.T. Rules 1957 payment of
 Advance tax shown on the assets side of the
 balance sheet should not be deducted fro the
 tax payable with reference to the book
 profits for the purpose of determining
 excess of provision for taxation in terms of
 explanation (ii)(c) to Rule 1 D of
 W.T.Rules, 1957?

¶18

 . In so far as first question is concerned,
 considering C.B.D.T. circular dated 27.10.1989,
 question will have to be answered in the affirmative
 in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

¶19

 . Considering the questions referred and in view of
 the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari
 Singhania Versus C.W.T. (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC), the
 question No. 2 is referred back to the tribunal for
 answering the issue in terms of the law laid down in
 the judgment of Bharat Singhania (supra). Reference
 returned back accordingly.

¶20

(R.S. MOHITE, J.)(F.I. REBELLO,J.)

The C.W.T.B.C-Vii. v. S.P. Godrej and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The C.W.T.B.C-Vii. v. S.P. Godrej and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income Tax -I 3,MUMBAI Vs M/S Mangal Trading Co., Mumbai

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central-Iii, Mumbai Vs M/S. Hindustan Polymides and Fibres Ltd.

The Commissioner of Income Tax Central -Ii, Mumbai Vs M/S. Topaz Holdings Pvt.Ltd

The C.W.T. Bombay City I, Bombay Vs Shri Amarchand Jalan, Bombay

The C.W.T., Bombay City Ix, Bombay Vs Smt. Geeta D. Piramal Bombay

The C.W.T.Central-Ii,Bom. Vs Shri Manmohan K. Desai.