:1: bgp bgp bgp IN IN IN THE THE THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.138 OF 1996 TAX REFERENCE NO.138 OF 1996 TAX REFERENCE NO.138 OF 1996 The Bots Company India Ltd. ..Applicant Vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax ..Respondent Mr.Sanjiv M.Shah i/b.Crawford Bayley & Co. for applicant. Mr.P.S.Sahadevan for respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & :- V.C.DAGA & J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. J.P.DEVADHAR,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 27TH APRIL,2009 : 27TH APRIL,2009 : 27TH APRIL,2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. 2. The Tribunal has referred following questions for the opinion of this Court. i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that reimbursement of medical expenses is to be considered as part of salary for the purpose of computing the disallowance u/s.40A(5) and part of remuneration for the purposes of computing the disallowance u/s.40(c) of the Act? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that house rent allowance paid to an employee should be considered as part of salary for the purposes of computing the disallowance u/s.40A95) of the Act? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the claim of the assessee company for weighted deduction u/s.35B on interest on packing credit loan was allowable ? :2: 3. The issue referred, has already been answered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income Commissioner of Income Tax Tax Tax Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. 215 ITR Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. 215 ITR Vs. Jaipur Metals and Electricals Ltd. 215 ITR 413. 413. 413. In this view of the matter, the question Nos.1 and 2 are answered in negative i.e. in favour of Assessee and against the Revenue. 4. So far as question No.3 is concerned, it is answered negative i.e. in favour of Revenue and against the Assessee. Reference is accordingly disposed of. (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (J.P.DEVADHAR,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.) (V.C.DAGA,J.)