((-1-)) HVN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 235 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 235 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 235 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 54 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 54 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 54 OF 2004 AND AND AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 236 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 236 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 236 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 53 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 53 OF 2004 TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 53 OF 2004 AND AND AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 237 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 237 OF 2004 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 237 OF 2004 WITH WITH WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 55 OF 2004 WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 55 OF 2004 WEALTH TAX APPEAL (L) NO. 55 OF 2004 The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ... Appellant Versus M/s. National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. ... Respondent Mr. A.D. Kango with Mr. P.S. Sahadevan for the Appellant. Mr. S.S. Shetty for Respondent. 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: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 DATED: FEBRUARY 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Considering the cause shown in all three motions, delay condoned. Office to register the appeals. . In so far as the appeals are concerned, the tribunal by its order of 21.3.2003 disposed of three appeals filed by respondents herein for the assessment years 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98. ((-2-)) . The Revenue has preferred these appeals on the following common question : (a) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Hon’ble Tribunal is correct in deleting the addition of Rs.91,12,92,520/-from the net taxable wealth of the assessee, the same being the leasehold immovable property of the assessee at Bandra Kurla Complex?" . On considering the agreement entered into by the Respondent with B.M.R.D.A. the learned tribunal has set out various recitals from the said agreements one of the relevant recital is clause 7 which reads as under : "Grant of Lease : As soon as the said Officer has certified that the building and works have been erected in accordance with the terms hereof and if the Licensee shall have observed all the stipulations and conditions herein before contained, the Authority shall grant, and the Licensee shall accept a lease (which shall be executed by the parties in duplicate) of the said land and the building erected thereon for the term of 80 years from the date of ((-3-)) possession on payment of ground rent at the following rates." . The other recital in the agreement would show that untill the building was constructed, the assessee had only right to enter upon the land as licencee. This is also reflected in the clause of the agreement. In fact according to learned counsel for the respondent assessee the lease agreement was registered on 18.6.2002. We do not propose to go into that issue. In so far as assessment years in respect of which the appeals have been preferred and considering the findings recorded by the tribunal, it will thus be clear that the assessee respondent was on the premises merely as a licencee and not as a leaseholder. In these circumstances, in our opinion, the question would not arise and consequently appeals are dismissed. (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)