(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1039 of 2000 Director of Wealth Tax(Exemption) ..Appellant Vs. J.K.Sports Foundation )..Respondent WITH WITH WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1040 of 2000 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1040 of 2000 WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1040 of 2000 Director of Wealth Tax(Exemption) ..Appellant Vs. J.K.Sports Foundation )..Respondent Mr. P.S. Sahadevan, for the Appellants. Mr. V.B. Patel, for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. R.S.MOHITE, JJ. DATED: 20th February, 2009 DATED: 20th February, 2009 DATED: 20th February, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Both these appeals raise the same question. Consequently they are disposed of by this common order. The question reads as under:- "Whether on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under Section 5(1)(i), on the ground that since the date of disinvestment has been extended upto 31/03/1993, Section 21A can be applied only after that date, even though there is a (-2-) clear finding to the effect that even after 341/3/1993 the assessee continued to hold shares of private companies." 2. The only contention based upon which the question is framed is that the assessee even after 31st March, 1993 continued to hold the shares of a Private Company. The Tribunal has relied on the decision of another Bench of the Tribunal sitting at Delhi, which had taken the view that considering the extension given the benefit would have to be given as of 31st March, 1993 or expiry of one year from the end of the previous year in which the assets are acquired whichever is later. The amendment was initially brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1983. In the matter or interpretation of this provision our attention has been drawn to the consistent view taken by the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax. vs. Kumudam Commissioner of Income Tax. vs. Kumudam Commissioner of Income Tax. vs. Kumudam Endowments, 242 ITR, 159; Director of Income Tax Endowments, 242 ITR, 159; Director of Income Tax Endowments, 242 ITR, 159; Director of Income Tax (Exemption) vs. Sir M.CT. Muthuiah Chettiar Family (Exemption) vs. Sir M.CT. Muthuiah Chettiar Family (Exemption) vs. Sir M.CT. Muthuiah Chettiar Family Trust, 257 ITR 287 Trust, 257 ITR 287 Trust, 257 ITR 287 and the view taken in Director of Director of Director of Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. A.V. Narayanan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. A.V. Narayanan Trust, Income Tax (Exemptions) vs. A.V. Narayanan Trust, 265 ITR 635. 265 ITR 635. 265 ITR 635. 3. Considering the language of the provisions in our opinion we concur with the view taken by the Madras High Court. Considering the above, there is no merits in the question as framed. Consequently Appeal dismissed. (-3-) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)