[ASN] 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 REFERENCE NO.5 OF 2001 M/s. Hindustan Conductors Ltd. ..Applicant. Vs. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax,Central-II, Bombay. ..Respondent. Mr.S.J. Mehta for the Applicant. Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Respondent. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & R.S. MOHITE, JJ. DATE 3rd April, 2009. PC : 1. Reference has been made on the following questions. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the parts of the office premises of the assessee permitted to be used by M/s. Apart Ltd. were includible in its net wealth? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that parts of office premises at Bombay and New Delhi licenced to M/s. Apart Ltd. by the assessee company could not be considered to be used by the assessee for its own business even though the [ 2 ] compensation received for such use was assessed as business income in the hands of the applicant? 2. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that this matter is covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax Vs. Cema Cema Cema (P) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR 629. (P) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR 629. (P) Ltd. reported in 248 ITR 629. Considering that, the questions are answered in the negative against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. ( R.S. MOHITE, J.) ( F.I.REBELLO, J.)