These four applications involve common questions which have been referred for opinion of this court by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'E, under section 18(1) of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 read with section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The questions read as under :
"1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the deduction allowed under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is to be proportionately reduced from the computation of capital for surtax purposes in terms of rule 4 of the Second Schedule to the Surtax Act, 1964 ?"
2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessed is entitled to deduction at 50 per cent of the total donation made by the assessed which fell within the ambit of section 80G(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the purpose of rule 1(vii) of the First Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ?"
Dispute relates to the assessment years 1976-77 to 1979-80.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities and the Tribunal, we find that the first question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer the question. So far as the second question, which is essentially a question of law involving no elaborate factual description, is concerned, the decisions in CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 567 (AP) and CIT v. Echjay Industries (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 27 (Bom) are applicable. We are in agreement with the views expressed in the said cases and, therefore, we answer the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.
2. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. On perusal of the orders passed by the authorities and the Tribunal, we find that the first question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer the question. So far as the second question, which is essentially a question of law involving no elaborate factual description, is concerned, the decisions in CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (1988) 173 ITR 567 (AP) and CIT v. Echjay Industries (P) Ltd. (1995) 214 ITR 27 (Bom) are applicable. We are in agreement with the views expressed in the said cases and, therefore, we answer the second question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessed and against the revenue.
All the four reference applications stand disposed of accordingly.