-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. Income Tax Appeal No. 1197 of 2007 The Commissioner of Income Tax 19, Mumbai ..Appellant vs. M/s Vijay Deep Developments ..Respondent Mr.A.S.Shivsharan for appellant. Mr.P.Kaka with Mr.A.K.Jasani for respondent. CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. S.J.KATHAWALLA JJ. 25th August, 2008 25th August, 2008 25th August, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. By the above appeal the appellant is seeking to raise the following questions of law. a) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that the change in method of valuation of closing stock was bonafide and that by granting lease of a period of ten years there was a transfer of property within the meaning of Section 45(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 and only the remainder was to be valued in the hands of Assessee? 3. We have perused the Tribunal’s order dated 13th April, 2007 as well as the original assessment order and the order passed by CIT(A). In fact, the respondent has -2- offered the entire lease premium of Rs.2.70 crores for tax. In addition, he has offered the amount of Rs.39,00,000/- which was received as lease premium for tax. As rightly pointed out by the Appellate Tribunal the issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of A.R.Krishnamurthy and another Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras reported in (1989) 176 it 417. We do not find any substance in the above appeal. The appeal is dismissed. (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.) (S.J.KATHAWALLA J.) (Dr.S.RADHAKRISHNAN J.)