BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE,J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following question Nos. 1, 2, and 3 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, before this Court : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee being a non-resident shipping company, was not entitled to deduct the deferred rebate of Rs. 10,46,119 (asst. yr. 1976-77) and Rs. 9,30,341 (asst. yr. 1977-78) allowed to the shippers from the gross freight earning for the purpose of computation of the assessee's income from shipping business in terms of s.44B of the IT Act, 1961. 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee being a non-resident shipping company was not entitled to deduct the deferred rebate of Rs. 4,81,895 (asst. yr. 1978-79) and Rs. 5,42,063 (asst. yr. 1979-80) allowed to the shippers from the gross freight earning for the purpose of computation of the assessee's income from shipping business in terms of s. 44B of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, being a foreign shipping company, was not entitled to set off the unabsorbed loss in the amount of Rs. 6,47,67,249 for each of the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 brought forward from earlier years as represented by unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years against the assessee's income for the asst. yr. 1979-80.
(2.) THE assessment years involved are 1976-77 to 1979-80 for which the relevant periods of accounts are the accounting years ended on 31st Dec., 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 respectively. The question No. 1 is now concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of D.D.C.Hansa vs. CIT (IT Ref. No. 78 of 1984) in which the judgment was delivered on 9th April, 1990 since reported in (1992) 105 CTR (Cal) 363. Following the said decision the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(3.) THE question in R.A. Nos. 575 and 576 (Cal)/85 and question No. 1 in R.A. No. 577 (Cal) and 578(Cal)/85 is also covered by the above decision and the said questions are also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.;