K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE (L) NO.156 OF 1993 M/s.Procter & Gamble India Ltd., ) (Previously known as Richardson ) Hindustan) Ltd., Tiecion House, ) 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 behest 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 (a) expenses of Rs.3,76,439/- incurred under the head provision of tools and implements for use by farmers ; (b) Expenses of Rs.55,999/- under the head transportation services provided of farmers ; (c) Depreciation of Rs.57,723/- on Distillation assets ? : 2 : At the behest of revenue :- 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in rejecting the claim of the assessee that for the purpose of computing disallowance under Rule 6 of the Income-tax Rules, 1961 limits as were in force on 1.4.81 were applicable through out the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1981-82 ? 2. As regards question no.1(a), Counsel appearing for the applicant conceded that the record indicates that the "tools & implements" as mentioned in the question pertain to the grant of distillation services. Read thus, the question has been answered by us in the judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988. The said judgment and order was passed in a reference involving the same assessee and arising out of similar background of facts. In the circumstances, question no.1(a) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. Question nos.1(b) and 1(c) have been answered by us by a judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. The said reference concerned the same assessee and arose out of similar background of facts. In the circumstances, for the reasons given in our judgment passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998, question nos.1(b) & 1(c) are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. : 3 : 4. In so far as question no.2 raised at the behest of the revenue, Counsel conceded that the issue has been decided in the negative, in favour of revenue by the judgment and order of this Court in the case of CIT Vs. Aorow India Ltd., reported in 229 ITR CIT Vs. Aorow India Ltd., reported in 229 ITR CIT Vs. Aorow India Ltd., reported in 229 ITR 325. 325. 325. On perusal of the judgment, we find that the issue is covered by the judgment. The question is therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the answers given above, reference is disposed off with no orders as to costs. (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)