DIPAK KUMAR SEN, J. - (1.) THIS reference arises out of the income tax assessment of the Alkali & Chemical Corporation of India Ltd., Calcutta the assessee in the asst. yr. 1971-72, the accounting year ending on 30th Sept., 1970
(2.) ON an application of the assessee under s. 256(1) the IT Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred, as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, for the opinion of this Court : 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and on proper interpretation of the IT Act, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of interest paid by the assessee to the extent of Rs. 1,63,326 ?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of the assessee's claim of Rs. 18,653 for depreciation ?" On an application of the Revenue also under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 the following question have been referred as questions of law arising out of the order of the Tribunal, for the opinion of this Court : 1. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 13,645 representing re-imbursements of medical expenses to the employees was not an expenditure resulting directly or indirectly in the provision of any benefit or amenity or perquisites to the employees within the meaning of s. 40(a)(v) of the IT Act, 1961 ?" 2. "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that borrowed moneys should be included in the capital employed for the purpose of computing the relief under s. 80J of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the new industrial under taking ?" 3A. So far as the question No. 2, referred at the instance of the assessee, is concerned, the same appears to be covered by s. 35(2)(iv), which was amended by the Finance Act, 1980 with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1962. The legal position following the amendment of the said section is not disputed by the assessee. Accordingly we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(3.) THE controversy raised in question No. 1 referred at the instance of the Revenue is also covered by the several decisions of this Court. Namely : (a) CIT West Bengal-II vs. Kanan Devan Hills Produce Co. Ltd. (1979) 119 ITR 431 (Cal) (b) Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, West Bengal II (1982) 137 ITR 827 (Cal); (c) CIT vs. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. (1983) 35 CTR (Cal) 207 : (1984) 145 ITR 457 (Cal) (d) CIT vs. The Alkali and Chemical Corporation of India Ltd. Calcutta (1986) 53 CTR (Cal) 313 : (1986) 158 ITR 58 (Cal). ;