D.M.CHANDRASHEKHAR,J - (1.) WE have heard Sri A. N. Mahajan for the assessee and the learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department.
(2.) THE facts of the case having been set out in the statement of case it is unnecessary to repeat them.
(3.) THE Income Tax Tribunal has referred to this Court the following four question of law : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of interest paid by the assessee company under S. 3(3) of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Validation) Act, 1961 was allowable expenditure ? 2. Whether interest charged under S. 3(3) of the aforesaid Act was a penalty for infringement of law ? 3. Whether the assessment order passed by "Sur Tax Officer" was valid in law ? 4. Whether the provision for taxation and dividend being the reserves should have been included in the Capital base for Statutory Determination ? The answer to question Nos. 1 and 2 above are fully covered by the ruling of this Court in Kamla Pat Moti Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax. The answers to questions Nos. 3 and 4 are also fully covered by the ruling of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Hind Lamp Ltd.;