AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J. :
The Tribunal has referred the following questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961, before this Court :
Ref. Nos. 575 and 576(Cal)/1985.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right to holding that the assessee being a non-resident shipping company, was not entitled to deduct the deferred rebate of Rs. 10,46,119 (asst. yr. 1976-77) and Rs. 9,30,341 (asst. yr. 1977-78) allowed to the shippers from the gross freight earning for the purpose of computation of the assessees income from shipping business in terms of s. 44B of the IT Act, 1961.
R.A. Nos. 577 (Cal) and 578 (Cal)/85
Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee being a non-resident shipping company was not entitled to deduct the deferred rebate of Rs. 4,81,895 (asst. yr. 1978-79) and Rs. 5,42,063 (asst. yr. 1979-80) allowed to the shippers from the gross freight earning for the purpose of computation of the assessees income from shipping business in terms of s. 44B of the IT Act, 1961.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee, being a foreign shipping company, was not entitled to set off the unabsorbed loss in the amount of Rs. 6,47,67,249 for each of the asst. yrs. 1978-79 and 1979-80 brought forward from earlier years as represented by unabsorbed depreciation for earlier years against the assessees income for the asst. yr. 1979-80.
The assessment years involved are 1976-77 to 1979-80 for which the relevant periods of accounts are the accounting year ended on 31st December, 1975, 1976, 1977 and 1978 respectively.
The question No. 1 is now concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of D.D.C. Hansa vs. CIT (IT Ref. No. 78 of 1984) in which the judgment was delivered on 9th April, 1990 since reported in D.D.G. Hensa Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, . Following the said decision the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
The question in R.A. No. 575 and 576 (Cal)/85 and question No. 1 in R.A. No. 577 (Cal) and 578 (Cal)/85 is also covered by the above decision and the said questions are also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
The question No. 2 in R.A. No. 577 (Cal) and 578 (Cal)/85 is now concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Universal Cargo Carriers Inc. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, .
Following the said decision this question is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue.
There will be no order as to costs.
SUHAS CHANDRA SEN, J. :
I agree.