High Court Of Delhi
Gangeshwar Ltd. vs. CIT
Section 35C
Asst. Year 1975-76
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.
IT Ref. No. 90 of 1983
16th August, 2001
Counsel Appeared
S.K. Aggarwal, for the Assessee : R.C. Pandey with Ms. Prem Lata Bansal, for the Revenue
JUDGMENT
ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. :
The following questions have been referred for the opinion of this Court under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-E (in short “the Tribunal”).
“1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled for weighted deduction under s. 35C on a sum of Rs. 2,74,201 ?
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee was not entitled to weighted deduction under s. 35C r/w r. 6A on the expenses for road repairs directly incurred by the assessee amounting to Rs. 1,04,620 and his contribution for construction of new road sides the five year plan amounting to Rs. 1,25,717 ?” The dispute relates to the asst. yr. 1975-76.
The point in issue relates to agricultural development allowance under s. 35C of the Act. So far as the first question is concerned, it relates to expenses relatable to aerial spray of insecticides. It was not disputed before the Tribunal that the said aerial spray of insecticides was done by the Cane Development Council on behalf of the assessee and other sugarcane factory owners, cane growers and the Government of U.P. The question that arose was whether it could be said that the expenses was incurred by the assessee directly or through an association or body which has been approved for the purpose of the provision by the prescribed authority. Admittedly, the Cane Development Council was not an association or body which has been approved by the prescribed authority for the purpose of the provision in question. The requirement is that the claim of weighted deduction is allowable when an expenditure is directly incurred. Therefore, the answer to the first question referred has to be in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as the second question is concerned the expenditures are not covered by any of the prescribed conditions for entitlement to weighted deduction under s. 35C of the Act. Therefore, the answer to the second question is also in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The reference stands disposed of accordingly.
[Citation : 254 ITR 589]
