IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1239 OF 2007 WITH WEALTH TAX APPEAL NO.1377 OF 2007 Commissioner of Wealth-tax Central-1..Appellant Versus B.D.A.Ltd., ..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the appellant. Mr.Parvez Alam i/by Roy’s firm for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 20.02.2008 PC 1. Revenue had preferred 3 appeals for the assessment years 1998-2001. There were also 3 other appeals, two filed by the assessee and one filed by the revenue for the assessement year 1996-97. The Wealth Tax Appeal Nos.276/2003, 277/2003 and 278/2003 were whether the flat owned by the assessee was occupied for the purpose of business. There are two appeals before us for the assessement years 1998-99 and assessement year 1999-2000. There are 3 concurrent findings of fact recorded both by the Commissioners (appeals) and the ITAT that the building was used for the purpose of business of the assessee. Nothing has been pointed out to show us that the said findings are perverse. : 2 : 2. Considering the above, questions of law as framed would not arise and consequently, appeals stand dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)