1 10.ITR.389-95 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO.389 OF 1995 The C.I.T. Bombay IV ..Appellant. Vs. Dr.Beck & Co. (India) Ltd., ..Respondent. .... Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Appellant. Ms.Aarti Sathe i/b. Arun P. Sathe, for the Respondent. .... CORAM : J. P. DEVADHAR & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 07 th DECEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. At the instance of the Revenue, the ITAT has referred the following two questions for the opinion of this Court under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to the assessment year 1983-84 : i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) allowing full/initial contribution to superannuation fund amount to Rs.1,57,287/- ? 2 10.ITR.389-95 ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in upholding the order of the CIT(A) allowing weighted deduction under s. 358 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the whole export inspection charges of Rs.12,55,181/- ? 2. As regards question (i) is concerned, the Counsel for the parties state that similar question raised by the Revenue in the assessee's own case being ITR No.22 of 1991 has been decided in favour of the assessee by order dated 13.7.2005. Accordingly, the first question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. 3. As regards the second question is concerned, Counsel for the parties state that in view of the amendment to Rule 6AA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 by the Income Tax (3 rd Amendment) Rules, 1982 w.e.f. 27.5.1982 having been not considered by the ITAT, it would be just and proper to restore the issue to the ITAT for fresh consideration. Accordingly, second question is restored to the file of the ITAT for fresh consideration in the light of the aforesaid provision. 4. Income Tax Reference is accordingly disposed of. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (J. P. DEVADHAR,J.)