Dipak Kumar Sen, J. - (1.) This reference arises out of the income-tax assessment of Punjab Produce & Trading Co. Ltd. for the assessment years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72, the relevant accounting years ending on the 31st March of calendar years 1969, 1970 and 1971. At the instance of the assessee, the following questions have been referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as questions of law arising out of its order, for the opinion of this court : "Assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the findings of the Tribunal that no evidence had been produced by the asses-see company to prove that Sri A. V. Birla, Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla and Smt. Sunanda Devi Birla had rendered any services to the assessee company was perverse and based on no evidence and ignoring the relevant materials on record for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?"
(2.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the remuneration paid to Sri A. V. Birla, Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla and Smt. Sunanda Devi Birla, were not for the purpose of assessee company's business and were not incidental to the business and could not be allowed as business expenditure for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71 ?
(3.) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the payment made to Smt. Priyamvada Devi Birla was not on account of any services rendered by her and was not incidental to the business of the assessee company was based on any relevant material and not perverse for the assessment year 1971-72 ?" "Assessment year 1969-70 : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Sections 70(2)(i) and 71(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the short-term capital loss of Rs. 2,14,131 should be set off first against the long-term capital gains and the balance against income under other heads ?" 2. The three questions, common to all the assessment years, are covered by a reported decision of this court in the case of the assessee in the earlier assessment year, viz., Punjab Produce and Trading Co. Ltd. v. C1T [1984] 146 ITR 95. Following the said decision, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, question No. 2 in the affirmative and question No. 3 in the negative, all in favour of the Revenue. 3. The facts relevant to the remaining question pertaining to the assessment year 1969-70, as on record are as follows : In the said assessment year, the assessee derived income from several heads. The assessee suffered loss in respect of its short-term capital assets and made gains in respect of assets other than short-term capital assets. The Income-tax Officer deducted the loss on account of short-term capital assets against the gains made in respect of other capital assets in the first instance and thereafter the balance was set off against the income of the assessee from other heads.;