1983 (12) TMI 45

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that has been referred is as follows: "Whether, on the facts and in law in the circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of Explanation 1 of rule 2 of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, the Tribunal was right in holding that the said sum of Rs. 3,50,000 being the adjustment made in respect of the excess depreciation charged in the earlier years could .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssessment year, the question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Mr. Bajoria, appearing on behalf of the assessee, has contended that there is another decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Indian Leaf Tobacco Development Co. Ltd. [1981] 132 ITR 831, in which a seemingly contradictory view has been taken. In that case, the judgment of this court in the case of Upper Ga .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Supreme Court on this point. In view of the aforesaid, we grant Mr. Bajoria's prayer for a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court. Let a certificate of fitness for appeal to the Supreme Court be issued under s. 261 of the I. T. Act read with s. 18 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. There will be no order as to costs. SATISH CHANDRA C.J.-I agree. - - Ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X