- (1.) THE Tribunal has referred the following questions of law arising out of its order dt. 28th Nov., 1984 under S. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the asst. yrs. 1980 81 and 1981 82 : RA No. 13 "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the surtax payable by the assessee company was not allowable as deduction in computing the total income under the IT Act, 1961? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,08,003 being conditional subsidy received from Rajasthan Govt. under the Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers did not form part of the 'actual cost' of the labour colony under S. 43(1) and consequently the assessee company was not entitled to get deduction for depreciation of Rs. 4,342 on the said amount under S. 32 of the IT Act?" RA No. 14 "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that surtax payable by the assessee company was not allowable as deduction in computing the total income under the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,08,003 being conditional subsidy received from Rajasthan Government under the Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers did not form part of the 'actual cost' of the labour colony under S. 43(1) and consequently the assessee company was not entitled to get deduction for depreciation of Rs. 4,23,233 on the said amount under S. 32 of the IT Act ?"
(2.) THE controversy raised in the above case is concluded by the decision of this Court. The first question has been decided in case of Associated Stone Industries Kota Ltd. vs. CIT (1988) 68 CTR (Raj) 8 : (1988) 170 ITR 653 (Raj) : TC 18R.197 and on the basis of the decision given by this Court, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the surtax paid by the assessee company was not allowable as deduction in computing the total income under the IT Act, 1961. The second question has also been decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee in the case of assessee, and on the basis of the said decision we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding with the sum of Rs. 2,08,003 being conditional subsidy received from Rajasthan Government under the Subsidised Housing Scheme for Industrial Workers did not form part of the 'actual cost' of the labour colony under S. 43(1) and consequently the assessee company was not entitled to get deduction for depreciation of Rs. 4,233 on the said amount under S. 32 of the IT Act.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision given by the apex Court in CIT vs. P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (1994) 121 CTR (SC) 201 : (1994) 210 ITR 830 (SC) : TC 29R.367 and the decision given by this Court in the case of CIT vs. Ambica Electrolytic Capacitors P. Ltd. (1991) 91 CTR (Raj) 49 : (1991) 191 ITR 494 (Raj) : TC 29R.386.;