This appeal by department arises out of proceedings for assessment to estate duty on estate of late shri Vilaschandra G. Jain, who died on 12-3-1970. 2. deceased was partner in firm of C.J. Textiles & Accessories accountable person, deceased's interest in good will of said firm was declared at nil, although clauses 14 of partnership deed provided for computation of goodwill in case partner retired or died. Assistant Controller observed that firm had been earning profits and that business was being carried on in commercial locality. Consequently, said firm had acquired goodwill. He estimated value of goodwill at three years' purchase of average assessed profits for last three years. This value came to Rs. 50,000 and share of deceased therein came to Rs. 25,000. He included that amount of Rs. 25,000 in principal value of estate. 3. In appeal file by accountable person, grievance was that amount payable by said firm as has under Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the 1961 Act'), should have been deducted from assessed profits, and that assessed profits as reduced by said tax, should have been taken as base f o r calculating three years' purchases. This contention was accepted by Controller (Appeals) as he issued necessary directions. department has now come in appeal before us on this point. 4. learned departmental representative relied on decision of Bombay High Court in case of Smt. Urmila v. CED [1980] 122 ITR 958 in support of contention that assessed profits should not be reduced by registered firm's tax in calculation of three years' purchase in estimating value of goodwill. 5. learned representative of assessee, on other hand, relied on order of Tribunal in CED v. Harackachand shah [ED Appeal No. 13 (Pune) of 1976], in which this very point had been decided in favour of assessee. 6. We have considered rival submissions. question is whether or not purchaser of goodwill of firm would take into account registered firm's tax is payable on profits earned by firm in making his estimate about value of goodwill. It is true that quantum of income-tax payable on profits would depend on fact whether business concern is proprietary concern or registered firm or company. This is because rates of tax payable by individual, registered firm and company are different. purchaser of goodwill would not take into account amount of income-tax that was being paid by particular vendor. What he would take into account would be amount of income-tax payable at estimated average standard rate. rate of tax payable by registered firm is minimal under Finance Act. purchaser of good will would normally take into account registered firm's tax payable under 1961 Act in estimating value of goodwill. Consequently, registered firm's tax should be deducted from assessed income and balance should be taken into account in calculating three year's purchase. It appears to be well-established principle of accounting that in valuing goodwill, income-tax at estimated average standard rate should always be deducted from amount of estimated super profits upon which value is based. 7. decision of Bombay High court to which our attention has been invited on behalf of department, is not on this point. question that arose for decision in that case was as to which of two profits, namely, returned profits or assessed profits, should be taken into account in estimating value of goodwill. answer given by High Court was that it is assessed profits and not returned profits which should be taken into account. question as to what should be further deducted from assessed profits was not before their Lordships and, as such, that aspect was not subject-matter of adjudication in that case. Consequently, said decision is not authority for proposition that registered firm's tax cannot be deducted from assessed profits in estimating value of goodwill. 8. view that we have taken find support from order of Tribunal, relied on by assessee as referred to above. similar view has been taken by Bombay Bench of tribunal in D. J. Bhansali v. fifth ACED [ED Appeal Nos. 18 and 22 (Bom) of 1982 dated 4-10-1983]. We rely on those decisions and Nos. 18 and 22 (Bom) of 1982 dated 4-10-1983]. We rely on those decisions and confirm order of Controller on this point. 9. next point is with regard to value of open plot No. 3 atvile Parle. value declared by accountable person was in accord with valuation report of architect who had taken into account all relevant factors. Assistant Controller did not accept value shown in said report and made additions. Controller (Appeals) has observed that no convincing reasons had been given by Assistant Controller for taking value of Rs. 140 per square yard in place of Rs. 80 per sq. yard, mentioned in valuation report. He therefore, deleted said addition. learned departmental representative relied on order of Assistant Controller on this point. 10. We have gone through order of Assistant Controller on this point. We agree with Controller (Appeals) that there was not material on this basis of whilch Assistant Controller could have inferred that valuation made by registered value was erroneous. We, accordingly, uphold order of Controller (Appeals) on this point. 11. In this result, appeal fails and is dismissed. *** CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY v. SMT. PRABHAVATI V. JANI