*1* kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ESTATE DUTY REFERENCE NO.3/1997 The Controller of Estate Duty, Mumbai. ..Applicant -Versus- Late Smt.Lilavati R. Shah A.P. Sri Sanjay R. Shah. ..Respondent ........... Mr.D.K.Kamwal a/w Mr.H.D.Pandey, for the Revenue. None for the Respondent. .......... CORAM : V.C.DAGA & K.K.TATED, JJ. Date : 02nd March, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Revenue. None for the Respondent. 2 In exercise of powers under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has referred the following questions for the opinion of this Court:- “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in directing to value the shares of Star Chemicals Pvt.Ltd. on yield basis as against the valuation determined by the Assessing Officer? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal is right in law in allowing the liability of Rs.4,17,256/- payable to the assesses medical relief trust though there was no liability shown on the balance-sheet of the trust?” *2* 3 The learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Bharat Hari Singhania & others vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax & Others, passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1213/1990 reported in (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC). He submits that since the issue, covered by the said judgment, is answered in favour of the Revenue, the questions of law referred in the present case are also required to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. 4 We were taken through the judgment. We are satisfied that the question referred is covered by the said judgment and is identical. Accordingly, the questions referred are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Reference, accordingly, stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (K.K.TATED, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)