- (1.) THESE references relate to adjudication of questions of; law arising out of the order of the Tribunal with respect to the two assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. For the first assessment year, the following two questions of law stand referred : " (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 2,64,544 constituted of the sums of Rs. 1,77,358, Rs. 36,257 and Rs. 50,949, respectively, marked by the assessee as "reserve for house", "reserve for doubtful debts" and "reserve for gratuity" could be taken into consideration in the computation of capital employed for the purpose of statutory deduction under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that deductions allowed under Sections 80g and 80m falling under Chapter VI-A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, could not be considered as sums not "includible" in the total income for income-tax assessment and, therefore, would not fall for deduction under rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, for the purposes of computing the capital employed ?"
(2.) FOR the second assessment year similar questions as reproduced above, with the modification of figures in question No. 1, were referred. A third question was also referred for the assessment year 1976-77 which is as under : " (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in affirming the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) holding that the sum of Rs. 17,545 being unclaimed dividends, should not have been deducted while computing the capital employed ?"
(3.) THE first two questions are already covered by the decision of this court in the cases reported as CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P.) Lid (No. 1) [1989] 178 ITR 173 ; CIT v. Usha Aggarwal [1989] 178 ITR 406 and CIT v. Tej Cloth Weaving Factory [1989] 178 ITR 474. Hence, the questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee for the reasons recorded in the aforesaid cases.;