- (1.) THIS application has been filed under S. 26(3) of the GT Act in respect of asst. yr. 1976-77 arising out of the GTA No. 9/Jp/87 dt. 21st Aug., 1987. An application under S. 26(1) of the GT Act was filed before the Tribunal which was rejected on 18th Aug., 1988, hence this application. In the application filed by the petitioner he submitted that following question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal which requires to be answered by this Court : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the value of shares held by the assessee in M/s Krishna Limited, Beawar should be taken on the basis of yield method?"
(2.) THIS point was also subject-matter of an application filed under S. 27(3) of the GT Act in D.B. WT Ref. Appln. No. 45/1990. CWT vs. Seth Gokuldas Pradeep Kumar Rathi, [since reported in (1992) 105 CTR (Raj) 113], wherein this Court relying on the decisions of the CWT vs. Mahadeo Jalan 1972 CTR (SC) 395 : (1972) 86 ITR 621 (SC); CGT vs. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia (1980) 14 CTR (SC) 366 : (1980) 122 ITR 38 (SC) and CGT vs. Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Late Ambalal Sarabhai (1988) 67 CTR (SC) 247 : (1988) 170 ITR 144 (SC) observed that the method of valuation should have been yield method and not break-up method, in a going-concern. Therefore, the consistent view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court is that it would be on the basis of the dividends received. While deciding the identical question in an identical case, referred to above, by which the present case is squarely covered wherein there was the same assessee as is here also, this Court has decided the question against the Revenue in favour of the assessee. Consequently, we answer the question against the Revenue. We, therefore, reject the application and refuse to call for the reference. The assessee would be entitled to the cost of Rs. 600.;