Holding

The term 'loss' in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as incorporated into Section 115‑J of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, means loss after depreciation and may be set off against current year profit.

Summary

The Supreme Court considered whether the term "loss" in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as incorporated into Section 115‑J of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, includes depreciation. The assessees, including Mis. Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd. and V.V. Trans‑Investments (P) Ltd., argued that loss after depreciation of earlier years could be set off against the current year’s profit for computing book profit under the minimum tax provision of Section 115‑J. The Income‑Tax Officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal rejected this view, holding that only a pre‑depreciation loss could be set off. The High Court upheld the department’s position. The Supreme Court held that "loss" in the Companies Act provision means the loss arrived at after providing for depreciation, and therefore earlier years’ loss after depreciation may be set off against current profit. Consequently, the Court allowed the assessees’ appeals, set aside the High Court order, and dismissed the revenue’s appeals and special leave petitions.

Issues considered

Whether the term 'loss' in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205(1) of the Companies Act, 1956, as read with Section 115‑J of the Income‑Tax Act, 1961, includes depreciation.
Whether loss after depreciation of previous years can be set off against current year profit for computing book profit under Section 115‑J.
Interpretation of statutes by incorporation and the appropriate rules of construction to be applied.

Legislation cited

Companies Act, 1956s. 205(1) proviso clause (b)
Income Tax Act, 1961s. 115-J, s. 256(1), s. 256(2)

Subjects

statutory interpretationincorporationloss after depreciationbook profitminimum taxSection 115-JSection 205set off lossincome taxCompanies Actdepreciationcorporate tax

Judgment

MIS. SURANA STEELS PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. A
v.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.

APRIL 13, 1999

[S.P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.] B

Income Tax Act, 1961 : S. 115-J-Assessee-Book profit-Previous years
'loss' after depreciation-Set off against current year's profit-Validity of-
Held, 'loss' occurring in clause (b) of the proviso to S. 205(1) of Companies
Act means 'loss' arrived at after depreciation-Assessee entitled to set off C
earlier years' loss against current years profit-Object ofS. 115-J Explained--
Companies Act, 1956-S. 205(1) proviso clause (b).

Interpretation of statutes

Legislation by incorporation-Held, the provision is to be read plainly D
and rules of interpretation to be applied if any ambiguity arises.

Words & Phrases:

"Loss "-Meaning of in the context of S. 205(1), proviso clause (b) of
the Companies Act, 1956 read with S. 115-J of Income Tax Act, 1961. E
Appellant-assessee, a private limited company earned profit for the
assessment year 1989-90. However, as it had incurred loss after depreciation
in earlier years, it filed returns disclosing 'nil' income after setting off
arrears of depreciation against the current year's profit. The Income Tax
Officer took the view that for arriving at the adjusted book profit, unabsorbed F
depreciation or business loss, whichever was less, was to be adjusted and
since there was no business loss in earlier years as per books of accounts,
no amount could be allowed to be set off. The said view was upheld by
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. On reference, High
Court held that in case there was profit in a year but after adjustment of G
depreciation it resulted in loss, no adjustment in the book profit under S.
115-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be allowed. Hence the present appeals
by the assessees.

In one of the appeals, the rejection of Reference under S. 256(1) by the
High Court and its upholding the Tribunal's rejection of Reference, raising H
589

'
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 2 S.C.R.

A the same questions as in the other appeals, the assessee challenged these
orders. Revenue has filed an appeal and two SLPs in connected matters.

Allowing the 2ppeals preferred by the assessees and dismissing the
appeal and SLPs preferred by the Revenue, this Court.

B. HELD : 1. Appellant-assessees were entitled to set off earlier year's
loss after depreciation against current year's profit.

2. S. 205(1), proviso clause (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 provides
that if any loss is incurred in any previous year/years, then the amount of
C tbe loss or an amount which is equal to the amount provided for depreciation
for that year/years whichever is less is to be set off against current year's
profit. The words "the amount provided for depreciation" and "arrived at in
both cases after providing for depreciation" make it abundantly clear that
in this clause 'loss' refers to the amount of loss arrived at after taking int<J
account the amount of depreciation provided in the profit and loss account.
D Then alone the formula prescribed in clause {b) would make sense and it
would be consistent with the object sought to be achieved by enacting S. 115-
J of the Companies Act. If 'loss' were to be taken as pre-depreciation loss
then the resultant computation will not be ia conformity with the tenor of the
provisions for Sec. 205. Thus, High Court erred in holding that in case there
E is profit in a year but after adjustment of depreciation it results in loss, no
adjustment in the book profit under S. 115-J of the Income Tax Act, 1961
can be allowed. [598-C-D-E)

Garden Silk Weaving Factory v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1991)
189 ITR 512, referred to.
F
3. The provisions of S. 205 proviso clause (b) of the Companies Act,
~tand bodily lifted and incorporated into the body of S. 115-J of the Income
Tax Act. S. 115-J, Explanation clause (iv) is a piece of legislation by
incorporation. The provision is to be read plainly and rules of interpretation
G should be applied if any ambiguity survives. Thus, there is no reason to
assign to the term 'loss' as occurring in S. 205 proviso clause (b) of the
Companies Act a meaning different from the one in which it is understood
there at solely because it is being read alongwith S. 115-J of the Income Tax
Act. High Court was not justified in holding that having lifted S. 205(1)(b)
from the Companies Act into S. 115-J of the Act, there is no occasion to
H refer to the Companies Act at all. (598-C-D; 597-E; 599-D-E]
SURAN A STEELS PVT.LTD. v. D.C.I.T. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 591
Justice G.P. Singh, 'Principles of Statutory Interpretation' 7th Edn., A
1999, referred to.

4. s. 1J5-J of the Income Tax Act was introduced in the assessment
year 1988-89 to take care to the phenomenon of prosperous zero tax companies
which had continued inspite of the enactment of S. 80 VV A. There were
companies which were paying no income-tax though they had profits and B
were declaring dividends. A plain reading of S. 115-J shows that if the
assessee be a company and its total income determined under the Income-
Tax Act in respect of a previous year be less than thirty per cent of its book
profit, fictionally it will be deemed that its total income chargeable to tax for
the relevant previous year was an amount equal to thirty percent of such C
book profit. The total income of the assessee shall first be computed in
accordance with provisions of Income-Tax Act and if the total income so
computed be less than thirty per cent of the book profit then profit and loss
account of the company for the relevant previous year shall have to be
prepared under sub-section IA of S. 115-J in accordance with Parts II and
III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act. The book profit so arrived at under D
the Companies Act shall be suitably adjusted so as to satisfy the requirement
of the Explanation to S. 115 of the Income Tax Act. (595-D-FJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4471 of 1995
Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12. 93 of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court in W.P. No. 5408 of'i 993.

K. Parasaran, T.L.V. Iyer, A.K. Chitale, Dr. V. Gauri Shanker, O.P. Dua, A.
Subba Rao, A.D.N. Rao, K. Maruthi Rao, Ms. Radha, G. Prabhakar, A.V.
Rangam, Neeraj Sharma, Neeraj Srivastava, (S. Rajappa, G. Venkatesh) for B.K. F
Prasad, S.K. Gambhir, Vivek Gambhir, Vijay Kumar, C. Jaykar, Abhijit Puri and
Ms. V. _Mohana for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R.C. LAHOTI, J. This is a batch of eight matters before this Court. The
G
routes through which the different matters travelled up to the High Court were
different. Some were reference applications under Section 256(1) of the Income-
tax Act, 1961 and some were writ petitions filed before the High Court. All
the matters have stood disposed of consistently with the view taken by the
Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the leading judgment H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A which is reported as V. V. Trans-Investments (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Commissjoner of
Income-tax, 1994 (207) ITR 508 and also impugned herein. In all the matte~ .
the question arising for decision is in substance only one : whether 'he te'rm
'loss' as appearing in Section 205(1), first proviso, clause (b) of the Companies
Act, 1956 read with Section 115 J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 means "including
depreciation."
'I.~
B
In order to appreciate the bone of contention it would suffice to state
the facts relevant to one of the assessee's namely M/s V.V. Trans-Investments
(P) Ltd., Hyderabad, a private limited company. The figures of net profit and
loss as per the profit and loss account of the company were as follows :
c Assessment profit/ Depreciation debited
year loss to P & L account

Rs. Rs.

D 1987-88 (+) 3,087

1988-89 (+) 35,79,997 67,75,759

(profit before depreciation)
(-) 31,95,762
E (loss after depreciation)
1989-90 (+) 28,37,947 3,534

The assessee-company had filed its return of income disclosing 'nil'
income after setting off a part of arrears of depreciation against the current
F year's profit of Rs. 28,37,947. The contention of the assessee was that for the
accounting year relevant to the assessment year under consideration there
was no book profit after adjustment of the earlier year's loss against the
current year's profit. The Income-tax Officer, however, computed the book
profit under section 115 J of the Income-tax Act at Rs. 8,51,380, being 30 per
G cent of the current year's profit of Rs. 28,37,947 as per the profit and loss
account. According to the Income-tax Officer, for arriving at the adjusted
book profit, unabsorbed depreciation or business loss, whichever is less, is
to be adjusted. Since there was no business loss in earlier years as per the
books of account, the amount to be set off was considered as 'nil', whereas
the assessee contended that earlier year's loss of Rs. 31,94, 136 which in fact
H was unabsorbed depreciation, was to be deducted from current year's profit
SURANA STEELS PVT.LTD. v. D.C.I.T. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.) 593

of Rs. 28 ,3 7 ,94 7 pefore arriving at the book profit under section 205 ( 1), first A ·
proviso, clause (b) of the Companies Act, 1956.

.
The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal have upheld
the view of the Income-tax Officer. On an application made by the assessee,
question of law were framed and referred for the opinion of the High Court.
Jn a few other matters, a special bench was constituted by the Tribunal B
forming an opinion that there was conflict in decisions of the Tribunal on this
issue. The Special Bench of the Tribunal has fonned an opinion for the
assessee. The High Court has answered the reference made by the Tribunal
in favour of the department and against the assessee. In the opinion of the
High Court the term 'loss' as used in Section 205 (I), first proviso, clause (b) C
of the Companies Act, 1956 read with section 115 J of the Income-tax Act,
1961 does not mean "including depreciation". In other words, the High Court
has held that the assessee is entitled to deduct depreciation or Joss whichever
is Jess only in the eventuality when in a given year there is loss as well as
( depreciation. In such a case, the lesser of the two amounts will be available
for deduction as per the provisions of Income-tax Act. In case there is profit D
in a year but after adjustment of depreciation it results in loss, no adjustment
in the book profit under Section 115 J can be allowed.

The relevant provisions to the extent relevant for the purpose of this
order are extracted and re-produced hereunder :-
E
-·- INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961

Section I l 5J : Special provisions relating to certain companies :- (I)
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this
Act, wherein the case of an assessee being a Company (other than F
a company engaged in the business of generation or distribution of _
electricity), the total income, as computed under this Act in respect
of any previous year relevant to the assessment year commencing on
or after the 1st day of April, 1988, (but before the 1st day of April,
1991) (hereafter in this section referred to as the relevant previous
year), is less than thirty per cent of its book profit, the total income G
of such assessee chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year shall
be deemed to be an amount equal to thirty per cent of such book
profit.

(I A) Every assessee, being a company shall, for the purposes of this
section, prepare its profit and loss account for the relevant previous H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A year in accordance with the provisions of Parts II and III of Schedule
VI to the Companies Act, 19 56 ( l of 19 56).

Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "book profit" means
the net profit as shown in the profit and loss account for the relevant
previous year (prepared under sub-section (IA), as increased by-
B
xxx xxx xxx

and as reduced by-

xxx xxx xxx

C (iv) the amount of the loss or the amount of depreciation which
would be required to be set off against the profit of the relevant
previous years as if the provisions of clause (b) of the first
proviso to sub-section (1) of section 205 of the Companies Act,
1956 (1 of 1956), are applicable.
D (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (I) shall aff~tt the determination
of the amounts in relation to the relevant previous year to be carried
forward to the subsequent year or years under the provisions of sub-
f section (2) of section 32 or sub-section (3) of section 32A or clause
(ii) of sub-section (I) of section 72 or section 73 or section 74 or sub-
section (3) of section 74A or sub-section (3) of section 80J.
E
COMPANIES ACT, 1956

S. 205. Dividend to be paid only out of profits. -( 1) No dividend shall
be declared or paid by a company for any financial year except out I
of the profits of the comapny for that year arrived at after providing
F for depreciation in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)
or out of the profits of the company for any previous financial year
or years arrived at after providing for depreciation in accordance with
those provisions and remaining undistributed or out of both or out
of moneys provided by the Central Government or a State Government
for the payment of dividend in pursuance of a guarantee given by that
G Government :

Provided that-
r-
'
I
xxx xxx xxx

H (b) if the company has incurred any loss in any previous financial
SURANA STEELS PVT. LTD. v. D.C.l.T. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 595

year or years, which falls or fall after the commencement of the A
Companies (Amendment) Act, 1960, then, the amount of the loss or
an amount which is equal to the amount provided for depreciation for
that year or those years whichever is less, shall be set off against the
profits of the company for the year for which dividend is proposed
to be declared or paid or against the profits of the company for any B
previous financial ;'ear or years, arrived at in both cases, after providing
for depreciation in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2)
or against both;

xxx xxx xxx
c
Section l l 5J was introduced in the assessment year 1988-89 to take care
of the phenomenon of prosperous zero tax companies which had continued
inspite of the enactment of section 80 VVA. There were companies which were
paying no income-tax though they had profits and were declaring dividends.
A minimum corporate tax was sought to be ensured on prosperous companies. D
A plain reading of Section l I 5J shows that if the assessee be a company and
its total income determined under the Income-tax Act in respect of a previous
year be less than thirty per cent of its book profit, fictionally it will be deemed
that its total income chargeable to tax for the relevant previous year was an
amount equal to thirty per cent of such book proft. The total income of the
assessee shall first be computed in accordance with provisions of Income-tax E
Act and if the total income so computed be less than thirty per cent. of the
book profit than profit and loss account of the company for the relevant
previous year shall have to be prepared under sub-section l A of Section 115
J in accordance with Parts II and III of Schedule VI of the Companies Act.
The book profit so arrived at under the Companies Act shall be suitably p
adjusted so as to satisfy the requirements of the explanation. We are in this
case concerned with the interpretation of clause (iv) under the Explanation to
Section 115.

Mr. Parasaran, the learned senior advocate appearing for one of the
assessees has submitted that the court should assign such meaning to the G
language of statute as would best serve the purpose sought to be achieved
by an enactment. He further submitted that speech of Finance Minister moving
the bill can be referred to for ascertaining the object behind. Finding out and
making use of parliamentary history for construing statutes is a modern trend
which is gaining ground. Under the rule laid down in Pepper v. Hart, (1993) H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

·A 1, All ER 42 (HL) a Minister's speech is admissible as an external aid to
construction. In India the decided cases have attempted at drawing a distinction
between using the Minister's speech as a material for finding out the mischief
to be remedied and the object or purpose of a legislation and using it for
finding out the legislative intent. The distinction has been criticised as artificial
B and inappropriate with a suggestion that a time has now come to abandon
it.

In the Budget Speech of 1987, the Minister of Finance referring to the
proposed Section 1151 explained the rationale behind its introduction in these
words:-
c "It is only fair and proper that the prosperous should pay at least
some tax. The phenomenon of so called zero tax highly profitable
companies deserves attention. In 1983 a new Section 80VV A was
inserted in the Act so that all profitable companies pay some tax. This
does not seem to have helped and is being withdrawn. I now prop'ose
D to introduce a provision whereby every company will have to pay
'minimum cooporate tax' on the profits declared by it in its own
accounts. Under this new provision a company will pay tax on at least
30% of its book profit. This measure will yield a revenue gain of
approximately Rs. 75 crores."
E
It appears that representations were made by and on behalf of the
companies pointing out certain hardships to companies of new projects which
have just begun to make profits and companies which having fallen sick were
just turning around the comer. The Finance Minister introduced an amendment

F
during the passage of the Finance Bill and said :-

"The Finance Bill inserts a new Section l 15J in the Income-tax Act,
1961, to levy a minimum tax on book profits of certain companies.
--
Representations have been received that in computing book profits
for the purpose of determining the minimum tax, losses and unabsorbed
depreciation pertaining to earlier years should be allowed to set off.
G
Otherwise, new projects that have just begun to make profits after
some years of losses and sick companies that have just turned the
comer, will become subject to minimum tax. There is merit in this
suggestion. Under Section 205 of the Companies Act, 1956, past
losses or unabsorbed depreciation, whichever is less, are allowed to
H be set off against the book profits of the current year for determining
597
-
SURANA STEELS PVT. LTD. v. D.C.l.T. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.]

profits for the purpose of declaring diyidend. It is proposed to allow A
the same adjustments in computation of book profits for purposes of
the new provision for levy of minimum tax."

Mr. Parasaran also referred to a passage from A. Ramaiya's Companies
Act (14th edition I 988, at page I 498), wherein the learned author has referred
to the established corporate practice and opined that the word 'loss' in B
proviso (b) to Section 205 (l) would include 'depreciation~ .. In accounting
parlance and in commercial sense, the word 'loss' is always taken as including
'depreciation'. If depreciation were to be excluded the legislature would have
-·- used the term 'cash loss'. A comparison may be with language employed in
Section 3 (o) of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 C
wherein a distinction is made between "accumulated loss" and "cash loss".
The learned senior counsel also referred to Garden Silk Weaving Factory v.
CIT, I 99 I (189) ITR 5 I 2 wherein this Court has held that unabsorbed
depreciation was part of loss. The learned counsel also referred to Section
349(4)(1) of the Companies Act which uses expression "excess of expenditure D
over income" which is narrower in scope and excludes depreciation. We find
substance in the submission. There is no reason to assign to the term 'loss'
as occurring in Section 205 proviso clause (b) of the Companies Act a
meaning different from the one in which it is understood there-at solely
because it is being read along with Section I 15J of the Income-tax Act.
E
Section l l 5J, Explanation clause (iv), is a piece of legislation by
incorporation. Dealing with the subject, Justice G.P. Singh states in Principles
of Statutory Interpretation (7th edition, 1999)-

"Incorporation of an earlier Act into a later Act is a legislative device
adotped for the sake of convenience in order to avoid verbatim F
reproduction of the provisions of the earlier Act into the later. When
an earlier Act or certain of its provisions are incorporated by reference
into a later Act, the provisions so incorporated become part and
parcel of the later Act as if they had been "bodily transposed into it".
The e~ect of incorporation is admirably stated by LORD ESHER, M.R. G
: "If a subsequent- Act brings into itself by reference some of the
clauses of a former Act, the legal effect of that, as has often been
held, is to write those sections into the new Act as if they had been
actually written in it with the pen, or printed in it. " (p.233)

"Even though only particular sections of an earlier Act are incorporated H
A
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

into later, in construing the incorporated sections it may be at times
necessary and permissible to refer to other parts of the earlier statute
-
which are not incorporated. As was stated by LORD BLACKBURN:
"When a single section of an Act of Parliament is introduced into
another Act, I think it must be read in the sense it bore in the original
Act from which it was taken, and that consequently it is perfectly
B
legitimate to refer to all the rest of that Act in order to ascertain what
the sections meant, though those other sections are not incorporated
in the new Act". (p.244)

Once we have ascertained the object behind the legislation and held
C that the provisions of Section 205 quoted hereinabove stand bodily lifted and
incroprotaed into the body of Section l l 5J of the Incom-tax Act, all that we
have to do is to read the provisions plainly and apply rules of intrerpretation
if any ambiguity survives. Section 205 (1), proviso clause (b), of the Companies
Act brings out the unabsorbed portion of the amount of depreciation alreday
D provided for comupting the loss for the years. The words "the amoun:-
provided for depreciation" and "arrived at in both cases after providing for
depreciation" make it abundantly clear that in this clause 'loss' refers to the
amount of loss arrived at after taking into account the amount of depreciation
provided in the Profit and Loss Account. The significance of the formula
E prescribed in clause (b) of the proviso to Section· 205 (1) of the Companies
Act can well be demonstrated by two examples as given hereunder :-

Example amount of amount of loss for the year
profit/loss depreciation after taking into
provided account the
F depreciation

(1) (+) l lac 3 lacs 2 lacs
~

(2) (-) l lac 3 lacs 4 lacs

G In example - (I) Rs. 3 lacs is the depreciation. Rs. 2 lacs is the loss after
).
taking into account the depreciation. The loss being lower than the amount
of depreciation, it will be taken into account for set off against the profit of
the year in which dividend is to be declared. In example - (2) Rs. 3 lacs is .the
depreciation. Rs. 4 lacs is the amount of loss after taking into account the
H depreciation. The depreciation being lower than the amount of loss, Rs. 3 lacs
SURANA STEELS PVT. LTD. v. D.C.I.T. [R.C. LAHOTI, J.] 599

is to be taken into account for set off against the profit of the year for which A
div!dend is to be declared. We are of the opinion that the term 'loss' as
occurrig in clause (b) of the proviso to Section 205 ( 1) of the Companies Act
has to be understood and read as the amount arrrived at after taking into
account the depreciation. Then alone the formula prescribed in this clause
would make sense and it would be consistent with object sought to be B
-,
achieved by enacting Section l 15J of the Companies Act, 1961. If' loss' were
to be taken as pre-depreciation loss then the resultant computation will not
be in conformity with the tenor of the provisions of Section 205. The language
of clase (b) of the proviso to Section 205 (1) is clear. It applies to those cases
where the depreciation has been provided in accordance with the provisions C
of sub-section (I) of Section 205. The depreciation is provided for in the Profit
and Loss Account. The loss is arrived at after taking into account the
depreciation provided. It is therefore clear that the word loss as used in
proviso clause (b) to Section 205 (I) singifies the amount arrived at after
taking into account the amount of depreciation and it has to be so read and D
understood in the context of Section l l 5J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We
do not agree with the view taken by the High Court that in case there is profit
in a year but after adjustment of depreciation it results in loss, no adjustment
in the book profit under Section J l 5J can be allowed. The view taken by the
High Court would partially defeat the object sought to be achieved by Section E
l 15J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We also do not agree with the High Court
saying that having lifted Section 205 (I )(b) from the Companies Act into
Section 1151 of the Income-tax Act, there is no occasion to refer to the
Companies Act, 1956 at all.

For the foregoing reasons, C.A. Nos. 44 71 of 1995, 44 72 of 1995 and F
C.A. Nos.180-181 (NT)/95 filed by (1) M/s Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd., (2) V. V.
Trans-Investment (P) Ltd., Hydrabad and (3) Mis Binjusaria Metal Box Co.
~.

Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad, respectively are allowed. The order under appeal passed
by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is set aside.
G
C.A. No. 7589 (NT) of 1997 is directed against order dated 31. 7 .96
passed by the High Court rejecting the application under Section 256(2) of
the Income-tax Act, 1961 filed by the assessee seeking a reference on similar
questions of law and upholding rejection of similar application under Section
256(1) by the Tribunal. The High Court and the Tribunal both have opined .H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999) 2 S.C.R.

A that no referrable question of Jaw arose. The appeal stands allowed and the
questions sought to be referred by the assessee stand answered in accordance
with the view taken by us hereinabove.

C.A. No. 1663/97, SLP Nos. 12388/97 and 13429/97, all preferred by tjie
B Revenue, are dismissed.
S.V.K.L Appeal dismissed.