1 wtr39-99 agk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO.39 OF 1999 Shri D.H. Ambani (HUF) ..Applicants Versus The Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bombay City VI, Bombay ..Respondent. Mr.J.D. Mistri, Senior Advocate with Mr.P.C. Tripathi with Mr.Raj Darak for the applicants. Mr.Suresh Kumar for the respondent. CORAM : J.P. Devadhar & A.R. Joshi, JJ. DATE : 1st December 2011 P.C. : 1. At the instance of the applicant / assessee, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’ for short) has referred the following substantial questions of law under Section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 for the opinion of this Court. a) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that for applying the provisions of Rule 1BB of the Wealth-Tax Rules, 1957, the gross maintainable rent of ½ share in the self occupied property at Khandala has to be the same equivalent to the standard rent under the Bombay Rent Control Act and not the Municipal Annual rateable value ? b) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount under the Compulsory Deposit 2 wtr39-99 Scheme (Income-tax Payers) Act, 1974, constitute an asset under Section 2(3) of the Wealth Tax Act and, therefore, includible in the net wealth of the assessee, for the assessment years in consideration ? 2. Counsel for the parties state that in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Smt.Smitaben N. Ambani V/s. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, reported in (2010) 323 ITR 104 (Bom), the first question is liable to be answered in the negative i.e. In favour of the assessee and against the Revenue (as per para-16 thereof), and the second question referred by the ITAT is liable to be answered in the affirmative i.e. In favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 3. The reference is disposed off accordingly with no order as to costs. (A.R. Joshi, J.) (J.P. Devadhar, J.)