IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX REFERENCE NO. 141 OF 1995 TAX REFERENCE NO. 141 OF 1995 TAX REFERENCE NO. 141 OF 1995 The Commissioner of Income-tax, Mumbai. ... Appellant. V/s. M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd. ... Respondent. P.S.Sahadevan i/b. H.D.Rathod for the applicant. Mrs.V.B.Patel for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. : V.C.DAGA AND J.P.DEVADHAR, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 9th April 2009. : 9th April 2009. : 9th April 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the parties. . Perused questions referred. 2. By this reference, the Tribunal is seeking opinion of this Court on following questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the disallowance under Rule 6D ought to be computed on the basis of aggregate trips undertaken by the employee during the year instead of computing the disallowance separately for each trip? (2) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the C.I.T.(A) holding that the telephone bills etc. cannot be considered for disallowance under Rule 6D? (3) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) that the addition of Rs.42,42,000/- on account of duty draw back and cash assistance on accrual basis was not justified? (4) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the order of the CIT(A) holding that provisions of section 40(c) instead of section 40A(5) should be applied for disallowance out of salary and perquisites in the case of employee-directors? (5) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in in confirming the order of the CIT(A), holding that 50% of commission paid to Mr.Dolphy Pinto Cairo amounting to Rs.3,23,765/- is eligible for weighted deduction u/s.35B when in fact the principal-agent relationship in law is not established and the commission on sales is not eligible for such deduction under any of the sub-clauses of section 35B? (6) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the CIT(A)’s order and allowing the guarantee commission of Rs.4,87,083/- as revenue expenditure? "(7) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in reversing the order of the CIT(A) and holding that the Rule 6AA is applicable to the assessment pending on the day of its promulgation, though, in fact, the Rule 6AA came into force on 27.5.1982 and is not applicable to assessee’s case, the assessment year being 1981-82?" 3. The learned counsel for both parties fairly state that question Nos.1 to 5 are already covered either by the judgments of this Court or that of the Apex Court. 4. So far as question No.1 is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Aorow India Limited C.I.T. v. Aorow India Limited C.I.T. v. Aorow India Limited, 229 ITR 325. In the circumstances, we answer question No.1 in - 3 - negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee for the reasons stated therein. 5. So far second question is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Acme Manufacturing Company Ltd. C.I.T. v. Acme Manufacturing Company Ltd. C.I.T. v. Acme Manufacturing Company Ltd., (2001) 249 ITR 460. It is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the reasons stated therein. 6. The third question is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. Matchwell C.I.T. v. Matchwell C.I.T. v. Matchwell Electricals Electricals Electricals (I) Ltd. (I) Ltd. (I) Ltd., 263 ITR 227. Following the said judgment question No.3 is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the reasons stated therein. 7. Question No.4 is covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.I.T. v. HICO Products C.I.T. v. HICO Products C.I.T. v. HICO Products Pvt.Ltd.(No.1) Pvt.Ltd.(No.1) Pvt.Ltd.(No.1), (1993) 2001 ITR 567. Accordingly, the said question is answered in the affirmative i.e. in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue for the reasons stated therein. 8. So far as question No.5 is concerned, the same is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Arvinda Paramila Works v. C.I.T. Arvinda Paramila Works v. C.I.T. Arvinda Paramila Works v. C.I.T., (1999) 237 ITR 284. Question No.5 is answered in the negative i.e. in favour of the Revenue and against the - 4 - assessee for the reasons stated therein. 9. So far as other two questions, namely, question Nos.6 and 7 referred at the instance of the Revenue are concerned, leaned counsel for the Revenue makes a statement that he does not want to press those questions. In this view of the matter, we return the said questions unanswered. 10. In the result, reference stands disposed of in terms of this order. (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, (J.P.DEVADHAR, J.) J.) J.) (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA (V.C.DAGA J.) J.) J.)