COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Vs. MORRIS ELECTRONICS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Department's application requesting the Tribunal to refer the following two questions to this court as questions of law was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that no referable questions of law arose out of its order :

(2.) WE find that the first question is covered by the decision of our court in the case of CIT v. Alcock Ashdown and Co. Ltd. : [1979]119ITR164(Bom) . No purpose is, thus, going to be served in directing the Tribunal to refer this question as a question of law to this court.

(3.) THE second contention that hundred per cent. deduction was allowed under Section 35(2)(ia) and therefore, the value of the assets could not have been included in the capital employed as assets is, in our view, equally fallacious, ft is to be borne in mind that the capital employed in the industrial undertaking for the purpose of Section 80J is to be computed under Rule 19A or Section 80J(1A). The provision is that, in the case of assets entitled to depreciation, their written down value and in the case of assets acquired by purchase and not entitled to depreciation, their cost of acquisition should be treated as the value of the assets. There is, admittedly, no provision for not including the value of scientific research assets in respect of which expenditure was allowed in full under Section 35(1)(iv) read with Section 35(2)(ia). The second question is, thus, also not referable as a question of law.