Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) In Income-tax Reference No. 201 of 1991, the following questions have been referred to us in R. A. No. 574/(Cal) of 1990 : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that 'tea bushes" should not be taken as a part of "agricultural land" but as a part of capital assets of the assessee's tea business ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of the finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that there is absolutely no indication to show that the appellant had not spent even a pie on the growth of the trees and in view of the fact that the assessee itself purchased the Oakes Tea Estate with standing trees on March 15, 1978, the finding of the Tribunal that the trees did not cost the assessee anything is based on any relevant material or perverse ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the profit on the sale of the timber is neither assessable as capital gains nor assessable as a taxable income ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a correct interpretation of Section 43(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, read with Rule 8(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that for the purpose of computing written down value of depreciable assets used in tea business only 40 per cent. instead of 100 per cent. depreciation at the prescribed rate should have to be deducted in the assessee's case ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the provision of Section 40A(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would not be applicable on current account balance of the directors, shareholders and others of the assessee-company ?"
(2.) And in R. A. No. 575/(Cal) of 1990, the following question has been referred to us : " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the assessee did not carry on its business of tea producing and manufacturing of tea during the year and also that the tea estate was sold away, the Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing the Assessing Officer to apply the provision of Rule 8(1) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, with regard to the sale of tea and waste and for computation of profit under Section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of the income of Oak Tea Estate ?"
(3.) In Income-tax Reference No. 103 of 1993, the following questions have been referred to us : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, when the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) gave a finding that there is absolutely no indication that the assessee had not spent even a pie on the growth of the trees sold but confirmed the Assessing Officer's assessment taking the cost of acquisition at nil as the assessee did not claim any ; the finding of the Tribunal that its finding that no cost is involved in the acquisition of the said trees is on the basis of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), is based on irrelevant material or perverse ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the Tribunal did not commit any mistake rectifiable under Section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ?";