K.J. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.3 OF 1998 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 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 weighted deduction under section 35C on :- (a) Expenses of Rs.6,32,442/- incurred under the head provision of distillation services of farmers ; (b) Expenses of Rs.1,05,809/- under the head transportation services provided to farmers ; (c) Depreciation of Rs.1,65,291/- on Distillation Assets ? 2. In our view, questions-1(a) & 1(c) are covered by our judgment passed in Income Tax Reference : 2 : No.315 of 1988 wherein in respect of the same assessee and on a similar factual background we have held that expenses on distillation services provided to the cultivator would not be admissible for a deduction under Section 35-C of the Income Tax Act. In our view, a position in relation to depreciation on such a distillation asset will not be different. In the circumstances, for the reasons which we have given in Income Tax Reference No.315 of 1988, we answer questions-1(a) & 1(c) in the affirmative and against the assessee. 3. As regards question-1(b), we find that the deduction was disallowed by the Tribunal in view of the orders passed for earlier assessment years. We find that the said rejection was based upon a finding of fact that the transportation services provided to farmers were in respect of transporting of crops after the same were harvested. Obviously, therefore this had no relation to any goods, services or facilities as outlined under Section 35-C (b). In the circumstances, we agree with the findings of the Tribunal. We answer this question in the affirmative and against the assessee. 4. In view of the answers given above, the reference is disposed off with no orders as to costs. : 3 : (R.S.Mohite,J) (F.I.Rebello,J)