K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.189 OF 1993 The Commissioner of Income-tax ) Mumbai City 7, R.No.611, Aayakar ) Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400 020 )..Applicant V/s. Richardson Hindustan Ltd., ) Tiecicon House, Dr.E.Moses Road ) Bombay-400 011 )..Respondent ---- Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for the applicant. Mr.J.D.Mistry with Ms.Payal Parikh, Ms.Nikita Kadam i/by M & M Legal Venture for the respondent. ---- Coram : F.I.Rebello & R.S.Mohite,JJ Date : 18.3.2009. Judgment :- (Per : R.S.Mohite,J) 1. The question of law referred to this Court under Section 156(1) of the Income-tax Act is as under :- 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) Expenses of Rs.2,07,069/- incurred under the head provision of tools and implements for use by farmers ; (b) Expenses of Rs.43,525/- under the head transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Depreciation of Rs.48,878/- on Distillation assets. 2. As regards question no.1(a), it is contended that the "tools and implements" as mentioned in the said question relates to distillation services through a distillation to plant owned and run by the : 2 : assessee. The question is covered by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988. In our said judgment and order, for the reasons given, we have decided the question in the affirmative and against the assessee. The said judgment and order is given in the reference concerning for the same assessee and arising out of similar set of facts. For the same reasons we answer question no.1(a) in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. Question no.1(b) has been answered by us in a judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. The said judgment also pertains to the same assessee and arose out of similar set of facts. In the circumstances, for the reasons mentioned in our aforesaid judgment and order, question no.1(b) is also answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. Question no.1(c) also has been answered by us in our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. For the same reasons the said question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 5. In view of the answers given above, the Income Tax Reference is disposed off with no orders as to costs. : 3 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)