PARASMAL KANJI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the above references are disposed of by this common order since the question of law involved is common.

(2.) THE facts of Parasmal Kanji are that the Tribunal in respect of asst. yr. 1981-82 held that the provisions of r. 1D of WT Rules are mandatory and, as such the valuation has to be done in accordance therewith. This controversy has been set at rest by the apex Court in the case of Bharat Hari Singhania vs. CWT (1994) 118 CTR (SC) 125 : (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) wherein it has been held by the apex Court that the provisions of r. 1D of the WT Rules are mandatory. THE apex Court observed as under :