Ajit K. Sengupta, J. - (1.) At the instance of the assessee, the following common questions of law have been referred to this court for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the assessee is a sterling company maintaining accounts in pound sterling, the Tribunal was right in holding that for the purpose of computation of the admissible amounts of depreciation under Section 32(l)(iii) and/or development rebate and profit under Section 41(2) of the Act for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the written down value of the fixed assets should be determined, not in pound sterling, but in equivalent amount of rupees ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, a revision of the written down value of the assets comprising service lines acquired prior to April 1, 1961, which written down value had been correctly arrived at under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, was required for the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 by virtue of the definition of 'actual cost' introduced by the Income-tax Act, 1961, with effect from the assessment year 1962-63 ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the disallowance of the loss of Rs. 1,46,322 for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 27,198 for the assessment year 1969-70 suffered by the assessee on the remittance of its profits from Calcutta to its head office in the U. K. ? (iv) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was justified in withdrawing the interest of Rs. 14,64,130 granted by him in the original assessment for the assessment year 1968-69 and Rs. 12,09,093 for the assessment year 1969-70 ?"
(2.) The first question is concluded by the decision in the case of the assessee for the earlier year in CIT v. Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. Following the said decision, we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
(3.) The second question is also concluded against the assessee in view of the decision of this court in the case of Riverside (Bhatpara) Electric Supply Co. Ltd. v. CIT [ 1977] 109 ITR 399. Following the said decision, we answer this question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.;