Calcutta H.C : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction under s. 35B could not be allowed on freight of Rs. 21,86,115 and insurance of Rs. 76,918 ?

High Court Of Calcutta

Organon (India) Limited vs. CIT

Section 35B, 37(1), 80J, 261

Satish Chandra, C.J. & Suhas Chandra Sen, J.

IT Ref. No. 240 of 1981

28th January, 1986

Counsel Appeared

Miss Seal, for the Assessee : S.K. Chakraborty, for the Revenue

SATISH CHANDRA, C.J.:

In this case, the Tribunal has referred the following questions for our opinion :

” 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that weighted deduction under s. 35B could not be allowed on freight of Rs. 21,86,115 and insurance of Rs. 76,918 ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax liability for the year could not be deducted in arriving at the total income under the IT Act ?

Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of s. 80-J of the IT Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in holding that the written down value of the depreciable assets and not their original cost should be taken into account in computing the capital employed for the purpose of calculating the deduction allowed under the section ?”

The point raised in the first question is covered by a decision of this Court in Bharat General & Textile Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1985) 153 ITR 747 (Cal). In view of this decision, this question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. The third question is also covered by the same decision of this Court. This question also is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Department.

The second question is concluded by a decision of this Court in Molins of India Ltd. vs. CIT (1983) 144 ITR 317 (Cal). We, therefore, answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the Department and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.

We are informed that this Court has also in ITR No. 202 of 1979 (Molins of India Ltd. vs. CIT) dated June 4, 1984, granted a certificate that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the second question. We, therefore, grant a certificate to the assessee under s. 261 of the IT Act, 1961, that this case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court in relation to the second question.

SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J.:

I agree.

[Citation : 172 ITR 354]

Malcare WordPress Security