ORDER
1. These appeals, by leave of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Karnataka dated July 3, 1975 (Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele and Sornappa P. Ltd. : [1977]106ITR399(KAR) allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent assessee and quashing the notices issued under Section 8/16 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
2. After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we do not find any good reason to interfere with the view taken by the High Court. A similar view has been taken by a number of High Courts in Addl. CIT v. Bimetal Bearings Ltd. : [1977]110ITR131(Mad) ; Commissioner of Surtax v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. : [1979]116ITR528(Bom) ; CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. : [1980]126ITR736(Delhi) (Delhi) ; CIT v. Premier Cotton Spinning Mills Ltd. : [1981]128ITR694(Ker) ; CIT v. Schrader Scovill Duncan Ltd. : [1981]132ITR822(Cal) ; CIT v. Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. : [1982]133ITR578(Guj) ; Siemens India Ltd. v. K. Subramanian, ITO : [1983]143ITR120(Bom) ; K. Subramanian v. Siemens India Ltd. : [1988]173ITR136(Bom) ; CIT v. J.K. Synthetics Ltd. : [1983]143ITR396(All) ; CIT v. Indian Detonators Ltd. : [1983]143ITR547(AP) ; CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. [1989J 178 ITR 635 (P & H) ; CIT v. Avery Cycle Industries (P.) Ltd. ; and CIT v. Century Spg. and Mfg. Co. Ltd. : [1978]111ITR6(Bom) . There is a preponderance of judicial opinion in favour of the assessee with which we agree.
3. The appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.