J.S. VERMA, C.J.—This order shall also dispose of Income-tax Reference No. 94/80. Both these references relate to the same Assessee and they involve for decision the same question of law in respect of two assessment years, 1973-74 and 1975-76. The question of law referred by the Tribunal under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act at the instance of the Assessee for decision by this court, is the following, namely: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that Sur-tax paid by the Assessee Company was not allowable as a deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act. ?" 2. The Assessee M/s. Associated Stone Industries (Kota) Ltd. is a public limited company. In respect of both these assessment years 1973-74 and 1975-76 the Assessee claimed the deduction of Sur-tax liability determined on the basis of Assessees income from the business. This claim was not made before the I.T.O. but for the first time before the A.A.C. The A.A.C. allowed the Assessees claim for this deduction. However, on further appeal, the Tribunal held that such a deduction could not be given by virtue of Section 40 (a) (ii) of the Incom3-tax Act, 1961 being a tax levied on the profits or gains of the Assessees business. Aggrieved by the view taken by the Tribunal the Assessee applied for reference of the above question of law arising out of the Tribunals order for both the assessment years to this court for its decision. This is how the question arises for decision before us. 3. The Sur-tax, of which deduction is claimed by the Assessee has been levied by the provisions contained in the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964. It is an Act to impose a special tax on the profits of certain companies. This is clearly mentioned in the statement of objects and reasons of the Act. The charging provision is contained in Section 4 of the Act. It lays down that every company shall be charged for every assessment year commencing on and from 1st April, 1964, a tax, referred in the Act as Sur-tax in respect of so much of its "chargeable-profits" of the previous year or years, as the case may be as exceed the statutory deductions" at the rate or rates specified in the Third Schedule. In short, the provision is to tax chargeable profits for the relevant period deducting there from the statutory deduction. The definition of "chargeable profits" and "statutory deduction" is contained in Section 2 of the Act. The chargeable profits is denned to mean the total income of Assessee computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 and adjusted in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule. It is, therefore clear that the Sur-tax under this Act is to be charged on the chargeable profit during the relevant period of assessment, which means the total income computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961 deducting therefrom the permitted statutory deductions. The question is whether the amount payable as Sur-tax by the Assessee is, therefore, an amount not deductable by virtue of Section 40 (a) (ii), which reads as under :- "40. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Sections 30 to 39, the following amounts shall not be deducted in computing the income chargeable under the head "profits and gains of business or profession," (a) in the case of any Assessee- (i) any interest ............ (ii) any sum paid on account of any rate of tax levied on the profits or gains of any business or profession or assessed at a proportion of, or other wise on the basis of, any such profits or gains." Perusal of this provision is sufficient to indicate that even if the amount of Sur-tax can be claimed as a deduction under any of the provisions contained in Sections 30 to 39, the same could not be permitted as a deduction by virtue of Section 40(a)(ii) the language of which is wide enough to include the Sur-tax within its ambit. The plain meaning of this provision is that any rate or tax levied on the profits or gains of any business falls within its ambit. As already indicated, the sur-tax is determined on the chargeable profits, which means the income of an Assessee computed under the Income-tax Act, 1961. In our opinion this alone is sufficient to reject the Assessees contention. 4. Learned counsel for the Assessee in all fairness pointed out to us two decisions in A.V. Thomas & Co Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. (1) and Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. (2) which take the same view. In our opinion this alone is sufficient to reject the Assessees contention. 4. Learned counsel for the Assessee in all fairness pointed out to us two decisions in A.V. Thomas & Co Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. (1) and Sundaram Industries Ltd. Vs. C.I.T. (2) which take the same view. Reference is also made therein to a decision of the Supreme Court in (1971) 82 ITR 580) dealing with the corresponding provision in the Income-tax Act. 1922. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in that decision such a provision was meant to exclude a tax or a case or a rate, the assessment of which would follow the determination or assessment of profits or gains of any business, profession or vocation in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act. This decision of the Supreme Court clearly supports the view taken by us, which is in consonance with the view taken in the above decisions by the Kerala and Madras High Courts. 5. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Assessee and in favour of the Revenue in respect of both the periods of assessment i.e. 1973-74 and 1975-76, as under:- 6. The Tribunal was justified in holding that the Sur-tax paid by the Assessee could not be allowed as a deduction in computing the total income under the Income-tax Act, 1961.