Gujarat High Court
WTR/40/1995 of COMMKISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX Vs PANKAJ R PATEL on 8 November 1996
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 40 of 1995 Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI And MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
WEALTH TAX REFERENCE No 40 of 1995
Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE S.M.SONI
And
MR.JUSTICE Y.B.BHATT
============================================================
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------- COMMKISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAXVersus PANKAJ R PATEL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR PK JANI FOR MR MANISH R BHATT for Petitioner SERVED for Respondent No. 1
-------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: S.M. SONI & Y.B.BHATT JJ. Date: 8th November 1996
ORAL JUDGEMENT (Per S.M. Soni J.)
1. The following question is referred to us, for our opinion, under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957:
"Whether, the appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in directing that valuation of the unquoted equity shares of Cadila group of companies be taken as per Rule 1D as interpreted by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Ashok K. Parikh 129 ITR 46?"
2. In view of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania Vs. C.W.T. (207 ITR page 1), the question is required to be answered in negative, in favour of revenue and against the assessee. Reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
********
----------------------------------------------------------