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. 44 OF WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 44 OF WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 44 OF 1998 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... App The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... App The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Applicant Versus S.P. Godrej & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.P.S. Sahadevan for the Applicant. Mr.A.K. Jasani and Mr. P.C.Tripathi 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: JANUARY 15, 2009 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2009 DATED: JANUARY 15, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The tribunal has referred the following two questions : (1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the interpretation of section 7 of W.T. Act rad with Rule 1D the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that for the purpose of ascertaining the market value as on 31.3.1979/31.3.80/31.3.81, the balance sheets of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Pvt. Ltd. as on 31st March, 1978/31.3.79/31.3.80 should be taken into consideration? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in holding that while valuing the unquoted equity shares of M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. under Rule 1 D of the W.T. Rules 1957 payment of Advance tax shown on the assets side of the balance sheet should not be deducted fro the tax payable with reference to the book profits for the purpose of determining excess of provision for taxation in terms of explanation (ii)(c) to Rule 1 D of W.T.Rules, 1957? . In so far as first question is concerned, considering C.B.D.T. circular dated 27.10.1989, question will have to be answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. . Considering the questions referred and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania Versus C.W.T. (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC), the question No. 2 is referred back to the tribunal for answering the issue in terms of the law laid down in the judgment of Bharat Singhania (supra). Reference returned back accordingly. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.) (F.I. REBELLO,J.)