:1: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3573 OF 2003 IN WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1124 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Ravi Industries Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 30TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. We have considered the aforesaid motion for condonation of delay as well as the reply filed by the respondent opposing condonation of delay. Considering the fact that the appellant has preferred this appeal and have shown cause, in our opinion, the same amount to sufficient cause. Hence, delay condoned. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.) :2: IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL LODG. NO.1124 OF 2003 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax. ..Appellant. Vs. M/s.Ravi Industries Pvt. Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr.A.D.Kango with P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr.A.K. Jasani for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATED : 30TH JANUARY,2008. PC : 1. This appeal has been preferred on the question of law (a) as framed in Para-4 of the appeal memo. 2. The CIT (Appeals) held in favour of the appellant herein that the value be considered would be in terms of the agreement itself. That finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been confirmed by the order of the tribunal. We do not find any infirmity in the concurrent finding recorded by the two authorities. In the light of that appeal is dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I. REBELLO, J.)