S. Ranganathan J. ( 1 ) THESE are two applications u/s 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner of I. T. They relate to the assessment years 1973-74 and 1976-77 respectively. They seek the reference to this court of a question as to whether the I. T. App. Tribunal was correct in holding that certain categories of expenditure incurred in India by the assessee qualify for the weighted deduction u/s 35 B of the Act. ( 2 ) THE assessee is a private limited company and it has been found as a fact that 89. 41% of its total sales represent export sales. For the assessment year 1973-74 the assessee claimed, inter alia, deduction u/s 35 B in respect of repairs and renewals (Rs. 7,141. 00), directors remuneration (Rs. 28,102. 00), electricity and power (Rs. 8,092. 00) and expenditure on foreign customers (Rs. 3,20. 00 ). The Tribunal has held the assessee to be entitled to deduction u/s 35 B in respect of 75% of the first three items of expenditure and 100% of the last item. In respect of repairs and renewals it pointed out that weighted deduct ion had already been allowed in respect of rent at 75% and that, therefore, weighted deduction on repairs and renewals should also be allowed to the same extent. In respect of directors remuneration it was held that the position was similar to that of the expenditure on salaries and allowances on 75% of which weighted deduction had already been allowed by the Commissioner of I. T. (Appeals ). In respect of Rs. 8,092. 00 incurred on electricity and power, the finding was that the expenditure had been incurred for maintaining the office which is maintained for purposes of export. In respect of the last item, it was held to be an item of expenditure on foreign customers and hence entitled to deduction u/s 358. For the assessment year 1976-77 the deductions claimed by asscssee were under the heads (i) Publicity and Pamphlets for distributing out of India (Rs. 48,198. 00) ; (ii) Rent (Rs. 1,53,293. 00); Printing and stationery (Rs. 46,772. 00); (iv) Directors remuneration (Rs. 13,458. 00); (v) Water and electricity charges (Rs. 5,60. 00); and (yi) Repairs and renewals (Rs. 6,515. 00 ). The Tribunal directed weighted deduction to be given on the entire sum of Rs. 48,198. 48,198. 00) ; (ii) Rent (Rs. 1,53,293. 00); Printing and stationery (Rs. 46,772. 00); (iv) Directors remuneration (Rs. 13,458. 00); (v) Water and electricity charges (Rs. 5,60. 00); and (yi) Repairs and renewals (Rs. 6,515. 00 ). The Tribunal directed weighted deduction to be given on the entire sum of Rs. 48,198. 00, on 50% of the claims under the head rent and printing and stationery and on 75% of the amount claimed under the other heads. ( 3 ) TWO points were made on behalf of counsel for the petitioner. One is that these were items of expenditure incurred in India and were, therefore, not entitled to weighted deduction. The second was that the assessee had not established the deductibility of these items under various specific clauses set out in Section 35b (2) and, therefore, wa not entitled to weighted deduction. So far as the first of these points is concerned, the language of Section 35 B itself show that, except for expenditure falling u/cl. (iii), the expenditure incurred under other clauses need not be necessarily in India; all that is necessary is that the expenditure should promote development of exports in the various aspects referred to in those clauses. This is clear not only from the language of the section but also from the decision of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Southern Sea Foods (P) Ltd. (1983-140 ITR 855) and of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jay Engineering Works (1984-140 ITR 197) referred to by the learned counsel for the parties. There is, therefore, no substance in this contention. ( 4 ) REGARDING the second contention some of the items of expenditure claimed are in the nature of general expenditure on establishmeht and administration. It has been pointed out in an earlier decision of this Court in Handicrafts and Handloom Export Corp v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1983- 140 ITR 532) that the assessee is entitled to a deduction even on broad heads of expenditure provided a connection can be established between these itmes of expenditure and the heads referred to in the various clauses of S. 35b (2 ). In the present case, as already pointed out, the assessee company is one which has its main business of export. More than 80% of its sales are export sales. In the present case, as already pointed out, the assessee company is one which has its main business of export. More than 80% of its sales are export sales. The Tribunal has found that the expenditure incurred under the various heads referred to above are all items of expenditure that promote export development. The only question is to what extent these items of expenditure can be related to export sales of assessee as opposed to the small magnitude of other turnover inside the country which the assessee had during the years of account. This apportionment is a question of fact. The Tribunal has broadly accepted the apportioned percentage arrived at by the Commissioner of 1. T against which the department had preferred no appeal. We find that the App. Tribunal has given reasons for treating these items of expenditure as attributable to export sales to the extent which they have permitted the weighted deduction. We, therefore, do not consider that any question of law arises out of this aspect of the order. ( 5 ) COUNSEL for the department submitted relying upon a decision of Allahabad High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vindeshwari trading Corpo- ration (1978-113 ITR 791) that even though a question may have been decided by this Court earlier it can be referred u/s 256 (1)/ (2) so long as there is no authoritative pronoun- cement of the Supreme Court. In this case the conclusion which the Tribunal arrived at follows directly from the language used in the statutory provision and there is no ambiguity or difficulty of interpretation. Apart from the decisions of this Court, the learned Councel has not brought to our notice any decision to the contray of any other High Court or any good icason for considering that there is any debateable or arguable point of law on the interpretation of the statutory provisions in relation to the aspect involved here. We are, therefore, of opinion that the principle referred to in the decision of the Allahabad High Court has no application here. ( 6 ) FOR the above reasons, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is based upon a clear and unambiguous inter- pretation of the statutory provision and does not call for any reference. Petitions dismissed.