IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 390 OF 1995 The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay .. Applicant V/s. The Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation of India Ltd., Bombay-20 .. Respondent Mr. R.V. Desai, Sr. Advocate with Ms. S.V. Bharucha for the Applicant Mr. S.J. Mehta for the Respondent CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM : S. RADHAKRISHNAN & J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. J.P. DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED : 28.02.2005 DATED : 28.02.2005 DATED : 28.02.2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Applicant and the Respondent. The questions referred to read as under:- "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in law in holding that the disallowable expenditure under Rule 6D should be computed by taking into account all the tours made by a particular employee during the entire previous year and not on the basis of individual tours? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance u/s. 32A of the Act on the value of the plant and machinery leased by assessee company?" 2. As far as question no. 1 is concerned, both the learned counsel concede that the issue is covered by judgment of Division Bench of our Court in CIT v. Aorow CIT v. Aorow CIT v. Aorow India Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 325 (Bom.) India Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 325 (Bom.) India Ltd. (1998) 229 ITR 325 (Bom.). In view thereof, the first question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. As far as the third question is concerned, both the learned counsel concede that the question is squarely covered by judgment of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Shaan Finance CIT v. Shaan Finance CIT v. Shaan Finance ( 2 ) (P) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC) (P) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC) (P) Ltd. (1998) 231 ITR 308 (SC). In view thereof, the third question is answered in the affirmative, i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.) (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)