T.D. Sugla, J.@mdashThe questions of law raised in this reference read thus :
Asst. yrs. 1960-61, 1961-62 & 1962-63.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the AAC''s decision that the value of the
shares of M/s. Renwick & Co., Pvt. Ltd. should be taken at face value of Rs. 10 per share against the break up value of Rs. 27.20 for each of the
asst. yrs. 1960-61, 1961-62 and 1962-63 ?
Asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1970-71
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Tribunal justified in excluding from the ""net wealth"" computation the debt
represented by the dividend declared by M/s. Renwick & Co. Pvt. Ltd. and not received on the valuation on each of the valuation dates for the
asst. yrs. 1960-61 to 1970-71 ?
2. The counsel are agreed that both the questions are covered by this Court''s decision in the case of Commissioner of Wealth-tax, (Central),
Bombay Vs. Bhogilal H. Patel, . In view thereof, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to
costs.