SEN, J. - (1.) THE following four questions of law have been referred to this Court by the Tribunal under s. 236 (1) of the IT Act, 1961 ('the Act') :-- "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the sale proceeds of import entitlements amounting to Rs. 2,25,335 were assessable as the assessee's business income ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the weighted deduction under s. 35B of the IT Act, 1961, was not allowable on the following export promotion expenses: 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the assessee's claim for allowance of Rs. 21,82,764 on account of interest payable under the Deferred Payment Scheme, was not admissible during the relevant accounting year 1979-80 ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the depreciation amounting to Rs. 18,324 was not admissible in respect of the diesel generating set lying in the custody of Industrial Plants Ltd.?"
(2.) THE assessment year involved in this reference is the asst. yr. 1980-81, for which the relevant period of account is the financial year ending on 31st March, 1980. Question No. 1 is now concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. vs. CIT (1982) 26 CTR (Cal) 60 : (1983) 139 ITR 865 (Cal). Following the said decision, this question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(3.) QUESTION No. 2(A) is now concluded by the judgment of this Court in the case of Union Carbide India Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 56 CTR (Cal) 146 : (1987) 165 ITR 558 (Cal). Following that decision question No. 2(a) is answered by saying that the Tribunal was not right in its decision in this regard. Question No. 2(b) relates a bank charges. This point in now concluded by several judgments passed by this Court including the case of Bharat General & Textile Industries Ltd. vs. CIT (1986) 53 CTR (Cal) 418 : (1985) 153 ITR 747 (Cal). We, therefore, hold that the bank charges paid for negotiation of Export Bills would not qualify for weighted deduction.;