We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee. Sri A.N. Mahajan has appeared for the department.
2. The following question has been referred to this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for the opinion of this court :
2. The following question has been referred to this court under section 27(1) of the Wealth Tax Act for the opinion of this court :
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the view that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of Rs. 4,78,998 representing the notional amount of capital gains tax ?"
3. The above question is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (sic). In view of the aforesaid judgment the question is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee.
3. The above question is covered by the Division Bench decision of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT (1994) 207 ITR 1 (sic). In view of the aforesaid judgment the question is answered in affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee.