K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.701 OF 1998 M/s.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 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.7,59,784/- incurred under the head Distilletion services provided to farmers ; (b) Expenses of Rs.3,27,628/- incurred under the head Transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Depreciation of Rs.1,47,676 on Distillation Assets ? 2. As regards question no.1(a), the same has been answered in the affirmative and against the assessee : 2 : by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988. The said reference concerns the same assessee and arose out of the similar background of facts. For the same reasons as given by us in the aforesaid judgment, question no.1(a) is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. Question nos.1(b) & 1(c) have also been answered by us in the affirmative and against the assessee by our judgment and order dated 18.3.2009 passed in Income Tax Reference No.3 of 1998. The said reference also concerns the same assessee and arose out of similar background of facts. In the circumstances, question nos.1(b) & 1(c) are answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. 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)