Reference limited to one issue where depreciation was factual and earlier refusals barred reference on similar tax questions.

Reference was declined on questions concerning contributions to Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and disallowance of expenditure on gifts and presents because identical questions had already been refused reference earlier. The depreciation dispute was treated as a question of fact, since the finding that machinery came into contact with corrosive material supported allowance at 15%, and no question of law arose. On repairs of Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and Shiva Temple, a similar question had earlier been accepted for reference, so the Tribunal was directed to state the case on that issue alone. Reference was thus confined to the fourth question.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether reference could be called for on the questions relating to contribution to Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and disallowance of expenditure on gifts and presents; (ii) whether the depreciation question raised a question of law or only a question of fact; (iii) whether the question relating to repairs of Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and Shiva Temple should be referred to the court.

Issue (i): whether reference could be called for on the questions relating to contribution to Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and disallowance of expenditure on gifts and presents.

Analysis: Similar questions had already been declined for reference in an earlier order of the court.

Conclusion: No reference was called for on these two questions.

Issue (ii): whether the depreciation question raised a question of law or only a question of fact.

Analysis: The finding was that the machinery did come into contact with corrosive material and, on that factual basis, the rate of depreciation allowable was 15%. Since the controversy turned on a factual determination, no question of law arose.

Conclusion: No reference was called for on the depreciation issue.

Issue (iii): whether the question relating to repairs of Bharat Commerce Vidyalaya and Shiva Temple should be referred to the court.

Analysis: A similar question had earlier been taken up for reference.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was directed to state the case and refer this question only.

Final Conclusion: Reference was declined on the first three questions and confined to the fourth question alone.

Ratio Decidendi: A reference is not called for where the issue is concluded by an earlier refusal, or where the controversy is purely factual and does not give rise to a question of law; a similar issue already accepted for reference may be referred again.

---