BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following questions of law to this Court under s.256(2) of the IT Act, 1961 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 for which the relevant accounting period ended on 31st Dec., 1975: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs.10,02,000 representing the actuarially valued liability for gratuity for the year 1975 was not an allowable deduction in computing that total income of the assessee company for the asst. yr. 1976-77 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee company was not entitled to weighted deduction under S. 35B of the Act in respect of the sum of Rs.31,885 representing fees paid for the certification of goods ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax liability under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 for the asst. yr. 1976-77 was not an allowable deduction in the income-tax assessment for the said assessment year" ?
(2.) THE question No.1 is now concluded by the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. New Swadeshi Mills of Ahmedabad Ltd. reported in (1984) 39 CTR (Cal) 228 : (1984) 147 ITR 163 (Cal). Following this decision, the question No.1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Regarding question No.3 Mr. R.N. Dutt, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee invited our attention to the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in the case of Doom Dooma Tea Co. Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1989) 78 CTR (Gau) 10: (1989) 180 ITR 126 (Gau). The Gauhati High Court in that case dissented from the judgment of this Court and six other High Courts, since this point is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Molins of India Ltd. vs. CIT reported in (1983) 35 CTR (Cal) 254 : (1983) 144 ITR 317 (Cal),we are inclined to follow the judgment of this Court and accordingly the question of law in question No.3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(3.) WITH regard to question No.2 Mr. Dutt, learned advocate for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal was wrong in not allowing the weighted deduction under S. 35B in view of the fact that the expenditure that was incurred was for certification of the goods for export, etc. The ITO found as follows : " On scrutiny of the claim for deduction under S. 35B, it is found that Rs.4,800 being fees paid to Indian Engineering Export Council and Rs.31,885 paid for certification of goods for export, etc., do not qualify for deduction under this section because these items of expenditure are not covered by any of the sub-cls. (i) to (ix) of S. 35B(1)(b) Aggregate of the disqualifying expenditure is Rs.36,685 and its 50 per cent is Rs. 18,342. Hence, this amount is disallowed out of the total deduction claimed under S. 35B." ;