- (1.) THIS reference application at the instance of Revenue under S. 256(2) of the IT Act, seeking reference for the opinion of this Court on the following questions : "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in : 1. observing that before pointing out any defects in the books of accounts of the assessee the AO was not justified in referring the matter of determination of cost to the District Valuation Officer ? 2. not accepting the valuation made by the DVO as per CPWD rates adjusted with the cost index applicable for Jodhpur ? 3. allowing the claim of higher depreciation of cinema building by treating the same as a plant ? 4. holding that the remittance of entertainment tax is a capital receipt in the hands of the assessee whereas the remittance of trading liability to provide assistance for efficient and profitable running of business and is not directly linked with any capital investment ?"
(2.) IT is submitted by Mr. Bhandawat that as far as question Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the Tribunal has already made a reference. As far as the first question is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Pratap Singh Amro Singh etc. etc. (1993) 200 ITR 788 (Raj). The second question is also covered by the decision of this Court in CIT vs. Hotel Joshi (1999) 157 CTR (Raj) 369 : (2000) 242 ITR 478 (Raj). Thus, no referable question of law arises, the reference application is rejected.;