1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.474 OF 2005 The Commissioner of Income-Tax Mumai City-16, Mumbai. .. Appellant Vs. Shri Shailendra G.Bansal. .. Respondent -- Smt. Anuradha Manik, Advocate for the Appellant. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ & A.P. DESHPANDE, J DATED : 25TH AUGUST, 2008 P.C. We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. The challenge in the Appeal is to the order dated 21st July, 2004 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the Assessment Year 1991- 92. The Tribunal recorded the following reasonings. “11. We have also noted that in assessee's own wealth-tax case for the assessment year 1990-91 being WTA No.603/M/1998 dated 12th Feb. 2001 the Tribunal held that for determining the value of shares by adopting break up value method the Balance Sheet available on the date of gift is relevant and not the 2 Balance Sheet closest to the date of gift. This decision was rendered after considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the judgment of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of S Viji vs. CGT (1998) 229 ITR 421(SC) and the Explanation to Rule 5 of Schedule II to Gift Tax Act.” 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant has not demonstrated before us that the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon has no application to the facts of the present case and that the Balance Sheet available on the date of gift deed is relevant date for consideration. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises. The Appeal is dismissed. CHIEF JUSTICE A.P. DESHPANDE, J