hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 1994 WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 1994 WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 24 OF 1994 Shri. Vijaypat Singhania ... Applicant Versus The Commissioenr of Wealth Tax ... Respondent Mrs. V.B. Patel for hte Applicant. Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for Respondent. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 05, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 05, 2009 DATED: FEBRUARY 05, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Tribunal was pleased to refer the following two questions i.e. Question Nos. 1 and 2 for the opinion of this court. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on correct interpretation of section 7 of the Wealth tax Act, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that these shares of J.K. Synthetics Ltd. belonging to the applicant were to be valued on the basis of the quotation of the Bombay Stock Exchange instead of the lowest quotation amongst all the Stock Exchanges in India merely because the applicant is assessed at Bombay and the Bombay Stock Exchange is in the near proximity of the assessee’s place of residence and occupation? 2. Whether valuation of shares belonging to the applicant on the basis of the quotation of Bombay Stock Exchange was held by the Appellate Tribunal amounts to discrimination between assessee’s residing and assessed at different place in India? 2. Considering the judgement of this court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Nirajkumar Bajaj (HUF) reported in 196 ITR Page 380, the questions as framed are questions on facts. Consequently, reference is returned unanswered. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)