(-1-) MGN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX REFERENCE NO.202 OF 1987 Smt.Matti U. Thackersey ..Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Wealth Tax ..Respondent Mr. K.C.Sidhwa, for the Applicant. 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: 13th February, 2009 DATED: 13th February, 2009 DATED: 13th February, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The questions referred are in paragraphs 10 and 11 in the order of the Tribunal dated 24th November, 1986 which reads as under:- "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs.86,75,186/- was not in the nature of Depreciation Reserve within the meaning of Explanation II of Rule 10 of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957 and ought to be therefore, treated as liability in valuing shares of the Crown Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd.? "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of (-2-) computing the market value of the unquoted equity shares of the company, the words "tax payable" in Explanation II (ii)(e) of Rule 1D of W.T,. Rules, 1957 cannot be construed as meaning the gross tax less advance tax actually paid which stands exhibited on the asset side?" . In our opinion the issue will be covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bharat Hari Bharat Hari Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC) Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (SC), Considering the above, Reference returned back to the Tribunal for disposal according to law in terms of the aforesaid observations. (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (R.S.MOHITE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.)