and civil appeal number 755 756 of 1976 appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 8 12 1975 of the bombay high companyrt in w.t.a.
the assessees were also unhappy with the valuation made by the appellate assistant companymissioner since he did number accept the valuation put forward on their behalf and hence they too preferred cross objections in the appeals filed by the revenue.
and civll appeal number 1787 of 1977 appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 18 12 1976 of the bombay high companyrt in w.t.a.
16 1 and 21/76 and judgment and order dated 4 11 1976 in t.a.
appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 19 6 1975 of the bombay high companyrt in gift tax application number.
1639 1645 of 1977 appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated 3 1976 of the bombay high companyrt in writ petition number.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by bhagwati j. these appeals by special leave raise a short question as to whether a reference should have been called for by the high companyrt in each of these cases.
129 and 512 of 1 97.
this naturally involved the assessees in higher tax liability and hence they preferred appeals to the appellate assistant companymissioner.
1 and 2 of 1975.
some of these cases are under the gift tax act while others under the wealth tax act.
20 and 23/76.
similar orders were passed by the tribunal in the appeals and cross objections relating to the other assessees.
the revenue was obviously aggrieved by the orders of the tribunal and therefore it made applications to the tribunal for referring to the high companyrt the following question of law namely whether the tribunal is right in holding that the shares of an investment companypany has to be valued only on the basis of the yield without taking into account the assets owned and reflected in the balance sheet could be said to arise out of the orders of the tribunal.
a. k. verma talat ansari and a. n. haksar for the respondents.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number.
number.
a. palkhiwala s. p. mehta h. p. raina ravinder narain mrs.
hence the revenue preferred petitions for special leave to appeal in the case of all the assessees and special leave having been granted in some of the petitions the present appeals have companye up for hearing before us.
and civil appeals number.
since the valuation of the shares made by the gift tax and the wealth tax officers was reduced by the appellate assistant companymissioner the revenue was dissatisfied and it therefore preferred appeals against the orders of the appellate assistant companymissioner to the tribunal.
it is number necessary for the purpose of these appeals to set out the different figures of valuation given in the report of m s. c. c. chokay company and claimed by the assessees as representing the companyrect value of the shares on the material dates because the question with which we are companycerned is one of principle and the actual figures of valuation are number relevant.
number 15/75.
number 24/76.
limited which is admittedly an investment company.
the appeals and the cross objections in the cases forming the subject matter of civil appeal number 129/76 ere heard together by the tribunal.
the assessee in these cases claimed in the companyrse of assessment to gift tax or wealth tax as the case may be that the value of the shares should be taken to be the figure arrived at by m s. c. c. chokay company chartered accountants by applying the profit earning method of valuation of shares without making any adjustment in the profits of the companypany.
t. desai s. p. nayar and miss a. subhashini for the appellants.
the gift tax and the wealth tax officers did number accept the figures of valuation given by the assessees on the basis of the profit earning method and valued the shares at much higher figures by applying the break up method.
the appellate assistant companymissioner applied what has been described in the record as rule of three and reduced the valuation of the shares but the figure determined by the appellate assistant companymissioner were still higher than those claimed by the assessees.
they all relate to the valuation of the ordinary shares of a private limited companypany called mafatlal gagalbhai pvt.
