Commissioner of Income Tax vs Tata Sons Private Ltd.

T.D. Sugla, J.—In this Departmental reference relating to the assessee''s assessment for the asst. yr. 1972-73, the Tribunal has referred to this Court the following three questions of law for opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 :

"1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that long-term capital loss arises in the relevant previous year of the assessee on account of the first capital distribution by Tata Hydro Electric Agencies Ltd., which went into liquidation in 1970 ?

Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that computers are not office appliances and, hence, machines eligible for allowance of development rebate under s. 33 of the Act ?

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to double Income Tax relief under s. 91(1) of the Act with reference to the gross amount of dividend income of Rs. 77,705 ?"

The counsel are agreed that, in view of our Court''s judgments in the cases of V.H. Gangal Income Tax Officer Vs. Cables and Wireless Ltd., and Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I Vs. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation, , the first and the second questions are to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The questions are so answered.

As regards the third question, it appears to us that the question of law framed does not bring out the real controversy between the parties and it is agreed to by the learned counsel on both the sides. Accordingly, we reframe the third question of law as under :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-company was entitled to unilateral relief under s. 91(1) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the dividends received by the assessee on the shares of U.K. Companies held by it ?"

The counsel are agreed that the reframed question is also required to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee in view of our Courts judgment in the assessee''s own case reported in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Tata Sons Private Ltd., which was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ghulam Ahmad Khan and Bros., - Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal Vs. Clive Insurance Co. Ltd., . Accordingly, the reframed questions is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.

No order as to costs.