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. 307 OF 1998 TAX REFERENCE NO. 307 OF 1998 TAX REFERENCE NO. 307 OF 1998 The Commissioner of Income-tax. ... Applicant. V/s. M/s.Bajaj Auto Ltd., Bombay. ... Respondent. A.S.Rao for the Applicant. P.Vaidya with Ms.Vasanti Patel for 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 : 29th March, 2005. : 29th March, 2005. : 29th March, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the applicant. The tribunal has referred following questions for the opinion of this Court: "1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the ITO to consider the benefits or amenities provided to the Managing Director u/s 40(c) and not u/s 40A(5) of the I.T.Act? 2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the ITO that salary paid to employees for the period of working outside India should not be included for the purpose of disallowance u/s 40A(5)? 3. Whether on the fa circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in directing the ITO to allow assessee’s claim relating to weighted deduction u/s 35B in respect of interest on packing credit? 2. The first question has already been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of C.I.T. C.I.T. C.I.T. v. Hico Products Ltd. v. Hico Products Ltd. v. Hico Products Ltd., (1993) 201 ITR 567 (Bom) in favour of assessee and against the revenue. 3. The second question has already been answered by the Apex Court in the case of C.I.T. v. C.I.T. v. C.I.T. v. continental continental continental Construction Ltd. Construction Ltd. Construction Ltd., (1998) 230 ITR 485 (SC) in favour of assessee and against the revenue. 4. The third question has already been answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajnikant Rajnikant Rajnikant Bros. v. C.I.T. Bros. v. C.I.T. Bros. v. C.I.T., (1996) 217 ITR 272 (Bom) and in C.I.T. v. Jaipur Metal & Electricals C.I.T. v. Jaipur Metal & Electricals C.I.T. v. Jaipur Metal & Electricals Ltd. Ltd. Ltd., (1995) 215 ITR 413 (Bom) against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. 5. In this view of the matter, question Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and question No.3 is answered in negative for the reasons stated in the above referred judgments. 6. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. *****