K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.517 OF 1997 M/s.Procter & Gamble India Ltd., ) (previously known as Richardson ) Hindustan Ltd.) ‘Tieciond, Dr.E. ) Moses Road, Bombay-11 )..Applicant V/s. The Commissioner of Income-tax ) Bombay City-V, Bombay ) Bombay-400 011 )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the respondent. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Ms.Payal Parikh, Ms.Nikita Kadam i/by M & M Legal Venture for the applicant. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 18.3.2009. Judgment :- (Per : R.S.Mohite,J) 1. The questions of law referred to this Court under Section 156(1) of the Income-tax Act are as under :- At the instance of the assessee :- 1. "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee-company for weighted deduction under section 35C on :- (a) various expenses incurred on demonstration of modern agricultural techniques and methods ; (b) Expenses on transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Expenses on scientific farming including depreciation on assets used for scientific farming ; (d) Expenses on distillation services including depreciation on assets used for distillation services ; (e) Depreciation on assets used for Mentha Research : 2 : Centre. At the instance of revenue :- (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee would be entitled to deduction u/s. 35-C on depreciation on jeeps used for dissemination of information ? 2. As regards question no.1(a), Counsel appearing for the assessee submits that the said expenses pertained to distillation services. The question is therefore, a part of question 1(d). This question has been answered in the affirmative and against the assessee by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988. The said judgment was passed on a similar factual background in a case involving the same assessee. In this view of the matter question nos.1(a) and 1(d) are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. As regards question no.1(b), the same has also been decided in the affirmative and against the assessee in a judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. The said judgment was also given in a case involving the same assessee. For the same reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment, question no.1(b) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. As regards question no.1(c), the same has also been decided in the affirmative by our judgment and : 3 : order passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid judgment, question no.1(c) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 5. As regards question no.1(e), the same has been answered in the affirmative and against the assessee by a judgment and order passed on 18.3.2009 in Income Tax Reference No.699 of 1998. For the reasons as given in the aforesaid judgment, question no.1(e) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 6. As regards question no.2 raised at the instance of revenue, we find that the record indicates and the finding of fact is that the jeeps in question were used for dissemination of information to the farmers. This activity was an integral part of the services contemplated under Section 35-C (b) (ii) of the Income Tax Act and in the circumstances, no fault can be found for allowing weighted deduction under Section 35-C in respect of the depreciation on jeeps used for such services. In the circumstances, the question no.2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 7. In view of the answers as given, the Income Tax Reference stands disposed off with no orders as to costs. : 4 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)