- (1.) THIS judgment will dispose of Income-tax References Nos. 39 and 40 of 1975 and 44 and 45 of 1977 as they relate to the same assessee.
(2.) THE assessment years involved in the said references are 1967-68 and 1968-69. Initially, the Tribunal referred only one question relating to the assessment year 1968-69 at the instance of the assessee which is the subject-matter of Income-tax References Nos. 39 and 40 of 1975. Later on, three more questions, two relating to the assessment year 1967-68 and one relating to the year 1968-69 were also referred on the mandamus issued by this court which are the subject-matter of Income-tax References Nos. 44 and 45 of 1977. The said four questions read as under: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the honourable Tribunal was justified in drawing a conclusion from the facts that the sum of Rs. 3,348 forfeited on account of security deposit of ex-employees constituted a receipt of a revenue nature ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in drawing a conclusion that 50% of the expenditure incurred on the eye-camp for the benefit of the employees was not for purposes of the business of the assessee company, thereby confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,600 out of the total expenditure of Rs. 3,205 specially when such expenditure had been allowed in full in earlier years ?
(3.) WHETHER, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in drawing the conclusion from the facts of the case, that the claim of the assessee-company for deduction of Rs. 2,000 on account of pension paid to Smt. Durga Devi Khanna, a widow of an ex-employee, as deductible revenue charge incurred in the normal and regular course of the business, was merely an ex gratia, payment, unconnected with the business of the assessee-company ?;