Judgment :- RATNAM J. In these tax case references under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, at the instance of the Revenue, the following common question of law has been referred for the opinion of this court in respect of the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74 "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the provision for gratuity should be treated as a liability and not as a reserve for finding out the break-up value of the shares held by the assessee in certain companies ?" * With reference to the same assessee, for a different assessment year, the same question came to be considered in the decision in CWT v. S. Ram 1984 (147) ITR 278, 1983 (37) CTR 158, 1983 (15) TAXMAN 149 , 1983 (37) CTR(Mad) 158 and it was held that, where a gratuity provision is based on a scientific or actuarial valuation and it truly reflects the discounted present value of the assessee's future liability, such a provision must be deducted in arriving at the value of the shares of the company for the purpose of computation of the net wealth of the shareholders. The principle of that decision would apply to these references as well. We may also point out that the decision in CWT v. S. Ram 1984 (147) ITR 278, 1983 (37) CTR 158, 1983 (15) TAXMAN 149 , 1983 (37) CTR(Mad) 158formed the subject matter of special leave petitions in S. L. P. (C) Nos. 14051 to 14287 of 1989 and 1116 of 1986 and the Supreme Court also upheld the view taken by this court in CWT v. S. Rant 1984 (147) ITR 278, 1983 (37) CTR 158, 1983 (15) TAXMAN 149 , 1983 (37) CTR(Mad) 158 and dismissed the special leave petitions on January 22, 1990 (vide [1990] 181 ITR(St) 227). In view of this, the common question referred to us are answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs