JUDGMENT : R. C. Mankad, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal" for short) has referred to us, for our opinion, the following questions under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: "For the assessment year 1972-73: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, for the purpose of working out the capital gains arising out of the sale of original shares and right shares and a coupon of Jyoti Ltd., the cost of the shares sold to be deducted from the sale proceeds should be worked out by spreading the cost at which the original shares were purchased and the right shares? For the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74 and 1974-75: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case depreciation on plant and machinery used for scientific research was not available?" 2. Assessment years under reference are 1972-73 to 1974-75, the previous years being calendar years 1971 to 1973. The Tribunal ought to have made three separate references instead of one common reference. In other words, separate reference should have been made for each of the three assessment years. We, therefore, split up this reference into three references and direct the office to treat the present references No. 39 of 1980 for the assessment year 1972-73 and number the references for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 as Income-tax References Nos. 39A and 39B of 1980, respectively. 3. The assessee is a public limited company. In its return of income for the assessment year 1972-73, the assessee disclosed capital gains of Rs. 37,105 on the sale of 1,475 original shares and 2,080 bonus shares (described as right shares) of Jyoti Limited and one coupon of share of Jyoti Limited. While working out the capital gains, the assessee claimed deduction of the cost of acquisition at Rs. 100 per share for the sale of original shares and no cost for the bonus shares. The Income-tax Officer, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. 1964 (52) ITR 567 , held that, for the purpose of computing the capital gains, the cost of the original shares had to be spread over the original shares and the bonus shares. The Income-tax Officer adopted the cost of the shares of Jyoti Limited at Rs. 79.33 and computed the capital gains chargeable to tax at Rs. 67,270. Ltd. 1964 (52) ITR 567 , held that, for the purpose of computing the capital gains, the cost of the original shares had to be spread over the original shares and the bonus shares. The Income-tax Officer adopted the cost of the shares of Jyoti Limited at Rs. 79.33 and computed the capital gains chargeable to tax at Rs. 67,270. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal having confirmed the computation of the capital gains made by the Income-tax Officer, question No. 1 has been referred to us for our opinion. As, in the orders of the Tribunal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer, bonus shares have been described as right shares in the question which has been referred to us. In other words, the word "right" in question No. 1 has to be read as "bonus" in the question. We, accordingly, reframe question No. 1. 4. Question No. 1, as reframed, is concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. 1964 (52) ITR 567 . The same view has been taken by this court in Income-tax References Nos. 21 and 22 of 1978, decided on June 16, 1981, and Income-tax Reference No. 35 of 1980 (Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. (No. 1) v. CIT, 1992 (194) ITR 497), decided today. Therefore, following the aforesaid decisions, we answer question No. 1, as reframed, in the affirmative and against the assessee. 5. Question No. 2 relates to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1974-75. In these years, the assessee had claimed depreciation on plant and machinery used for scientific research. The Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner rejected the claim of the assessee holding that the assessee had already been allowed 100 per cent. deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred on scientific research, as provided in section 35(1)(iv) read with section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal having confirmed the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, question No. 2 has been referred to us for our opinion. 6. deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred on scientific research, as provided in section 35(1)(iv) read with section 35(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal having confirmed the view taken by the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, question No. 2 has been referred to us for our opinion. 6. Section 35 (2) (iv), before its amendment, provided that, where a deduction is allowed for any previous year under that section in respect of expenditure represented wholly or partly by an asset, no deduction shall be allowed under clauses (i), (ii), (iii) and (vi) of sub-section (1) or under sub-section (1A) of section 32 for the same previous year in respect of that asset. It was, therefore, urged that depreciation, as provided in section 32, was not allowable only in the previous year in which deduction was allowed under section 35. Section 35(2)(iv) has, however, been amended by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980, with effect from April 1, 1962, to provide that no depreciation would be allowed in respect of assets used for scientific research, if the entire cost thereof has been deducted under that section. Under the circumstances, the claim made by the assessee does not survive. Question No. 2, which has been referred to us for our opinion, shall, therefore, have to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Reference answered, accordingly, with no order as to costs. 7. At this stage, Mr. K. H. Kaji, learned counsel for the assessee, prays that, so far as question No. 1 is concerned, this case may be certified as a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court under section 261 of the Act. As pointed out above, question No. 1 has been answered against the assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court and the decisions of this court in income-tax references referred to above. We have, for the reasons recorded in detail in Income-tax Reference No. 35 of 1980 (see 1992 (194) ITR 497 (Guj)), answered the question against the assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Co. Ltd. 1970 (78) ITR 16. We have, for the reasons recorded in detail in Income-tax Reference No. 35 of 1980 (see 1992 (194) ITR 497 (Guj)), answered the question against the assessee following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gold Co. Ltd. 1970 (78) ITR 16. Since, in our opinion, the question is directly covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, we do not see any reason or justification to certify this case, so far as question No. 1 is concerned, as a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. We, therefore, reject the prayer of Mr. Kazi.