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 (" the Act for short) : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that, in spite of the admitted fact that the business of the assessee consisted of 100% export, it was not entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on the entire expenses incurred of Rs. 5,70,026 in the assessment year 1976-77, of Rs. 17,77,304 in the assessment year 1977-78 and of Rs. 10,03,315 in the assessment year 1978-79 and claimed by it in the course of carrying on the business as per statement attached ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to claim full relief of 100% under section 35B of the Act on the items of expenditure as per statement attached ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appellant was not entitled to 100% deduction on all other items except those referred to in the immediate preceding question ? " 2. In our opinion, question No. 1 clearly brings out the controversy involved in this reference and questions Nos. 2 and 3 are mere repetitions of question No. 1 in a different form. Question No. 3, as framed, is misleading, inasmuch as the Tribunal has not taken the view to the effect that the assessee is not entitled to 100% deduction on all other items of expenditure except those referred to in the preceding question. What the Tribunal has held is that the assessee is not entitled to full relief, as provided in section 35B of the Act, on the items of expenditure as claimed by the assessee. This controversy is clearly brought out in questions Nos. 1 and 2. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of 100% of the expenditure which is revenue expenditure. The only question raised is whether the assessee is entitled to relief under section 35B of the Act. This controversy is clearly brought out in questions Nos. 1 and 2. It is not the case of the Revenue that the assessee is not entitled to deduction of 100% of the expenditure which is revenue expenditure. The only question raised is whether the assessee is entitled to relief under section 35B of the Act. In our opinion, therefore, it was not necessary to refer to us, for our opinion, questions Nos. 2 and 3, and in any case, question No. 3. 3. The assessee is a registered partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing guar gum splits and raw guar. The products manufactured by the assessee are exported to foreign countries and it, therefore, claimed export markets development allowance or weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act in respect of the entire expenditure incurred by it. This claim for weighted deduction under section 35B was made in the course of income-tax assessments for the assessment years 1976-77 to 1978-79. The assessee was granted relief under section 35B of the Act in respect of the expenditure incurred by it for (i) foreign telegram charges ; (ii) foreign telephone charges ; (iii) 75% of salary paid to export staff ; (iv) ECGC Insurance expenses ; (v) export promotion expenditure ; and (vi) telex charges, either by the Income-tax Officer or by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the question before the Tribunal in the appeals preferred by the assessee was in respect of only the remaining items of expenditure. This, however, is not clearly brought out in the questions which have been referred to us. The questions, as framed, suggest that all the items of expenditure are in dispute, whereas, as pointed out above, in respect of some of the items, the assessee was already granted relief under section 35B. We Will, therefore, have to read the questions as if they relate only to the remaining items of expenditure in respect of which weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act has not been allowed. 4. We Will, therefore, have to read the questions as if they relate only to the remaining items of expenditure in respect of which weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act has not been allowed. 4. The items of expenditure in respect of which the assessee has not been granted relief under section 35B of the Act are incurred in India and, since these items of expenditure, to the extent the assessee claimed is disallowed, fall under sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of section 35B(1) of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to any relief, as rightly held by the Tribunal. Twenty-five per cent. of the expenditure incurred in paying salary to the staff would fall under the said sub-clause (iii) and that expenditure, having been incurred in India, does not qualify for relief under section 35B(1)(a). The remaining items of expenditure also fall under sub-clause (iii) and they having been incurred in India, do not qualify for the relief under section 35B(1)(a). It may be pointed out that, in the appeals before the Tribunal also, learned counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the assessee was not entitled to claim relief under section 35B except in respect of three items of expenditure, namely, (1) telegram charges (foreign), (2) telephone charges (foreign), and (3) telex charges (foreign). So far as remaining items of expenditure are concerned, the assessee's claim was not seriously pressed. In view of the concession made by learned counsel for the assessee, the assessee is not entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the items of expenditure other than those in respect of which the assessee's claim has been allowed. 5. In the light of the above discussion, the questions which have been referred to us, for our opinion, shall have to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. 6. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.