Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX VS Respondent: T.S. SANTHANAM (HUF) and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of India Judge(s): S. P. Bharucha, N. Santosh Hedge, I. Y. K. Sabharwal Title: COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX vs T.S. SANTHANAM (HUF) and others Case No.: Civil Appeals Nos. 8499 to 8506 of 1995 Date of Judgment:2001-01-31 Reported As: 2001 PTD 2536 Result: Appeals allowed
Judgment ORDER The assessee has been served but has not chosen to put in an appearance. The question before the High Court at the behest of the Revenue read thus: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that for purposes of computation of the intrinsic value of unquoted shares under rule ID of the Wealth Tax Rules, 1957, the am- ount of advance tax paid by the company and shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet should not be deducted from the tax payable in determining whether the provision for tax was in excess over the tax payable with reference to the book profits in accordance with the law applicable thereto within the meaning of clause (ii)(e) of the Explanation to the said rule?" The High Court answered the question in favour of the assessee relying upon the decision in L.G. Balakrishnan v. CWT (1988) 173 ITR 266. That decision is no longer good law. The question is now governed by the decision of this Court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1. The civil appeals are, therefore, allowed and the question is answered in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs. - .
---
## Page 2
revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.