SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

D.R.SINGH, JOGINDER PALL
Jangi Lal Oswal – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Wealth-tax – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
M.L. Joshi,R.L. Chhanalia

ORDER

D.R. Singh, Judicial Member —These two appeals filed by two different assessee’s against the respective orders of the CWT(A)(C), Ludhiana, in appeal No. 78/WT/1995-96, CWT(A)(C), dated 26-2-1996, and appeal No. 69/WT/1993-94, CWT(A)(C), dated 26-2-1996, for the assessment year 1992-93 were heard together and are being disposed of by this single order as the facts and the issue involved in both these appeals are identical except variation in the amounts involved therein, for the sake of convenience.

2. The identical grounds of appeal taken by the assessee’s in their respective appeals are stated as under :—

"2. That the learned CWT(A) has misinterpreted the provisions of rule 9A of Schedule III to Wealth-tax Act, 1957, while upholding the action of the Assessing Officer with respect to rejection of value of equity shares of Vardhman Spg. Mills Ltd. taken by the assessee in the return of wealth.

3. That the learned CWT(A) has erred in law and on the facts while upholding the addition of Rs. 77,17,230 made by the Assessing Officer on account of valuation of equity shares as per rule 9."

3. The relevant and material facts for the disposal of the issue involved in these grounds of appe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top