1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO. 43 OF 1999 Commissioner of Wealth Tax Central-III .. Applicant Versus Smt. Nita J. Sanghvi .. Respondent MR. P. S. Sahadevan for the Applicant Mr. Panjabrao Naik for the Respondent CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY, 05, 2009 P.C. 1. The Tribunal has referred the following questions: i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, I.T.A.T. was justified in holding that in valuating the unquoted equity of Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, which are held by the assessee, the gross provision for taxation should be allowed as a liability without reducing it by the advance tax paid ? ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances 2 of the case and in law, I.T.A.T. was justified in holding that the assessee's interest in the firm of M/s Nibe India should be adopted on the basis of firms balance sheet as on assessee's valuation date i.e. 31.3.1983 and not on the basis of balance sheet drawn up at the closing of the firms accounts on the immediately preceding date i.e. 31.12.1982. 2. Both the questions have been answered in the Judgement of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Singhania Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, (1994) 207 ITR 1. 3. In so far as question No.2 is concerned, same is answered in favour of the Assessee and against the revenue. In so far as question No.1 is concerned, considering the judgement in the case of Bharat Singhania, the matter is remanded back to the tribunal to answer the said question in terms of the law laid down in the said judgment. Reference answered accordingly. ( R.S. MOHITE, J. ) ( F. I. REBELLO, J.)