High Court Of Delhi
Commissioner Of Surtax vs. Goetze (India) Ltd.
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. & D.K. Jain, J.
IT Ref. Nos. 140 to 142 of 1978
18th July, 2000
Arijit Pasayat, C.J. :
Since these three references involve identical questions, our order will govern each one of them.
2. On the basis of the applications filed by the Revenue under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), the Tribunal, Delhi Bench-B (“the Tribunal” in short), has referred the following questions, pertaining to the asst. yrs. 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, for the opinion of this Court :
“Whether, on the facts and in thecircumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs. 3,34,711 in the asst. yr. 1970-71, Rs. 4,32,620 in the asst. yr. 1971-72 and of Rs. 3,62,910 in the asst. yr. 1972-73 under s. 80-I of the IT Act, 1961, is deductible in the computation of the capital of the company under r. 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the said three assessment year ?”
3. Referring to a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Second ITO vs. Stumpp, Schuele & Somappa (P) Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 399 (Kar) : TC 56R.1126, it was held by the Tribunal that the provisions contained in r. 4 of the Second Schedule cannot be interpreted and invoked relating to deductions in respect of the reliefs granted under ss. 80-I and 80J of the Act. It has not been disputed that the aforesaid decision of the Karnataka High Court has been affirmed by the apex Court in Second ITO vs. Stumpp, Schuele & Somappa (P) Ltd. (1990) 94 CTR (SC) 160 : (1991) 187 ITR 108 (SC). In view of the decision of the apex Court, the answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The references are, accordingly, disposed of.
[Citation : 246 ITR 602]