Commissioner of Income Tax vs Hindustan Cocoa Products Ltd.

S.H. Kapadia, J.—There is total confusion in the statement of case under which three questions have been formulated by the Tribunal. Further, question No. 3 has been referred to this Court for opinion u/s 256(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 (''the Act''). However, question No. 3 is not clear. There is total confusion regarding which question has been precisely referred to this Court. Both the learned counsels appearing for rival parties have referred to the abovestated confusion. However, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the department clarified that it is question No. 2 which has been referred to this Court and not question No. 3. Question No. 2 reads as follows:

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to agricultural development allowance u/s 35C and allowing weighted deduction under the said section?

In view of our decision in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Cadbury India Ltd., , the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the department. Reference is disposed of accordingly.