COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJENDRA K PARIKH

ITR/40/1987HC GujaratGJHC24011773198713 February 2002Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.A.PUJ7 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the Tribunal was right in confirming the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) regarding the computation of share value under Rule 1D of the Wealth-Tax Rules, 1967. The Court's decision was guided by the Supreme Court's interpretation in Bharat Hari Singhania and others Vs. Commissioner of Wealth-Tax and others (207 ITR 1). The Supreme Court clarified that sub-clause (a) of clause (i) and sub-clause (e) of clause (ii) of Explanation II to Rule 1D operate in distinct fields. While clause (i)(a) removes advance tax paid from the list of assets for Rule 1D purposes, clause (ii)(e) addresses excess provisions for taxation. If advance tax paid is also shown as a liability, it must be deleted from liabilities. The Supreme Court illustrated that only the remaining payable tax should be treated as a liability on the valuation date, ensuring the assessee gets the benefit of the entire tax liability, but only the outstanding portion is considered a liability on the balance sheet for Rule 1D. The High Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.

What were the facts?

This case involves an Income Tax Reference before the High Court of Gujarat. The Revenue (Commissioner of Income-tax) has referred a question of law to the High Court concerning the valuation of shares under Rule 1D of the Wealth-Tax Rules, 1967. The Tribunal had confirmed the view of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on this matter. The core issue revolves around how advance tax paid by a company and shown on the assets side of its balance sheet should be treated when computing the market value of its shares under the Wealth-Tax Rules. The Revenue's contention is that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in confirming the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the value of the shares to be computed under Rule 1D of the Wealth-Tax Rules, 1967, as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashok K. Parikh (129 ITR 46)? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee relies on the interpretation of Rule 1D of the Wealth-Tax Rules, 1967, as laid down by the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh (1981) 129 ITR 46, and subsequently considered by the Supreme Court. The assessee argues that advance tax paid and shown as an asset should not be deducted from the tax payable when determining if the provision for taxation is in excess of the tax payable with reference to book profits. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue draws attention to the issue being similar to that in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh (129 ITR 46). The Revenue's implicit contention, as understood from the court's discussion, is that the advance tax paid should be treated in a manner that affects the computation of liabilities for the purpose of share valuation under Rule 1D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 210

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX REFERENCE No 40 of 1987

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI

and Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE K.A.PUJ

======================================================== 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES to see the judgements?

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement?

4.

Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder?

5.

Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 210

All 88 judgments and leading authorities on Section 210 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →