SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. - (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following questions of law under s.256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 : The questions referred at the instance of the assessee are as under : (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gratuity liability actuarially valued at Rs. 3,39,308 but not provided for in the books of accounts was inadmissible as a deduction due to the provisions of S. 40A(7) ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sale proceeds of import entitlements amounting to Rs. 3,17,856 were liable to capital gains tax. (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the export promotion expenses in respect of the following items were not entitled to weighted deduction under S. 35B of the IT Act, 1961 (4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the surtax liability for the year was not an allowable deduction under the IT Act, 1961 in computing the assessee's income from business ? The questions referred at the instance of the CIT are as under: (1) "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of the assessee under S. 80G of the IT Act, in respect of donation of Rs.1,00,000 to Viswamangal Trust was allowable ?" In RA No.129 (Cal) of 1981 : "(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Rs.81,368 represented liability of the assessee for the asst. yr. 1975-76 ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in upholding the action of the CIT(A) in setting aside the order of the ITO for finding out the extent of expenses held to be not in the nature of entertainment expenses in the light of the decision of Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Patel Bros. and Co. Ltd. (1977) 106 ITR 424 (Guj) ?"
(2.) IN this case the assessment year involved in 1975-76 for which the corresponding accounting year is the year ended on 31st March, 1975. The question No.1 raised by the assessee is concluded by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT & Anr. reported in (1985) 49 CTR (SC) 193 : (1985) 156 ITR 585 (SC) and the same is answered in the affirmative and infavour of the Revenue. . Rs. (a) Certificate fees to S.R.Batliboi and Co. 102 (b) Packing materials for export 54,663 (c) Handling, loading and unloading charges 19,121 (d) Port CIT's charges 4,499 (e) Export inspection charges 8,417 (f) Bank charges for negotiation of export bills 1,231
(3.) THE second question raised by the assessee is also concluded by a judgment of this Court in the case of K.K. Daftary vs. CIT reported in 1976 CTR (Cal) 23 : (1977) 106 ITR 998 (Cal) and in view of that the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.;