S. NAINAR SUNDARAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS Reference covers Assessment Years 1968-69 to 1975-76. The question that stand referred for our consideration and opinion in respect of the Assessment Years are as follows:-1 Assessment Year 1968-69-R. A. No. 290 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drawings and patterns obtained by the assessee from its foreign collaborators and for which payment has been made to the foreign collaborators are to be considered plant within the meaning of section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect thereof for the asst. years 1968-69? 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that there was no question of invoking the provisions of section 37 (2a) for the asst. year 1968 for disallowing expenses on food snacks and drinks provided to the employees and customers of the assessee which were not no lavish or extravagant scale or of wasteful nature? (II) For Assessment Year 1969-70 and 1970-71-R. A. Nos. 291 and 292/ 78-79 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drawings and patterns obtained by the assessee from its foreign collaborators and for which payment has been made to the foreign collaborators are to be considered plant within the meaning of section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect thereof? (III) For Assessment Year 1971-72 to 1974-75-R. A. Nos. 293 to 296/ahd/78-79 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drawings and patterns obtained by the assessee from its foreign collaborators and for which payment has been made to the foreign collaborators are to be considered plant within the meaning of sec. 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect thereof? 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect thereof? 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in holding that there was no question of invoking the provision of section 37 (2b) for disallowing the expenses on food snacks and drinks provided to the employees and customers of the assessee which were not on any lavish or extravagent scale or of wasteful nature for the assessment year 1971-72 to 1974 3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that to call the building kept apart by the assessee in its factory premises a guest house was a misnomer? 4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the building because it was used for providing the absolutely necessary facilities to the customers and constituents of the assessee? (IV) For Assessment Year 1975-76--R. A. No. 297 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the drawing and patterns obtained by the assessee from its foreign collaborators and for which payment has been made to the foreign collaborators are to be considered plant within the meaning of section 32 of the Income Tax Act 1961 and that the assessee would be entitled to depreciation in respect thereof for the Assessment Years 1975- 76? 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that to call the building kept apart by the assessee in its factory premises a guest house was a misnomer? 3 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to depreciation on the building because it was used for providing the absolutely necessary facilities to the customers and constituents of the as sessee? ( 2 ) WHEN we take note of the pronouncement which has already spoken on the question we find there is no need to traverse upon the facts with regard to Question No. 1 which is common to all the assessment years. ( 2 ) WHEN we take note of the pronouncement which has already spoken on the question we find there is no need to traverse upon the facts with regard to Question No. 1 which is common to all the assessment years. So far as this question is concerned the answer has already been given by the Apex Court in the Land in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Limited reported in (1987) 166 I. T. R page 66. The aforesaid pronouncement relates to the very same Assessee and in fact it has confirmed the decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat vs. Elecon Engineering Co. Limited reported in (1974) 96 I. T. R. page-673. The ratio already expressed in the case of Scientific Engineering House P. Limited vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Andhra Pradesh reported in (1986) 157 I. T. R page-86 has been followed by the Apex Court in the land in the case reported in (1987) 166 I. T. R. page-66. In the said circumstances Question No. 1 relating to all the assessment years is answered in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. ( 3 ) THEN we take up question No. 2 for the Assessment Year 1968-69 and for the Assessment Years 1971-72 to 1974-75. Here again there is no need to go to the factual aspect because this question has got to be answered in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee the name having been answered so in the case of Commissioner of Income Tar Gujarat-II vs. Gautamkumar Rajendrakumar reported in (1977) 106 I. T. R. page-424. Accordingly the answer to this question is given in the affirmative against the Revenue and in favour of the Assessee. ( 4 ) THEN we take up question Nos. 3 and 4 for the Assessment Years 1971-72 to 1974-75 and Questions Nos. 2 and 3 for the Assessment Year 1975 These question areise in the context of Section 37 (2b) of the Income Tax 1961 These questions naturally have to be looked into and answered taking note of the factual aspect as to whether there is a justification to treat the concerned premises within the factory as the Guest House. There are certain features which are indisputable and which are required to be taken note of. There are certain features which are indisputable and which are required to be taken note of. The building is admittedly in the factory premises. The building is kept apart by the Assessee as the Guest House. The customers coming from distant places and so also its own officers coming on duty there are permitted to stay in the building. The building is situated in a place where there are no other facilities available elsewhere to visitors. There are no hotesl or lodging houses anywhere in the vicinity. Given this set of facts what should be the legal inference has been settled by the pronouncment of this Court to which one of us (R. K. Abichandani J.) has been a party in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gaekwar Mills Limited reported in (1992)193 I. T. R. page-734. In that came also the Assessee maintained a Guest House with a mess at the factory premises in the town in question. That town was a small town with no adequate hotel facilities. The assessee in that case was maintaining a Guest House with a mess for its staff members coming from Bombay and the merchants who come to the factory premises for the purpose of business. The Bench referred to the expression any residential accomodation in the nature of a Guest House used in Clause (i) of Section 37 (4) and opined as follows :"the expression any residential accommodation in the nature of a guest house used in clause (i) of Section 37 (4) is wide enough to take within its sweep the residential accommodation or guest house maintained by the assessee. The meaning of the expression guest house given in the Oxford English Dictionary which is relevant for our purpose is a house or apartment for the reception or entertainment of strangers or guests. It would therefore appear that a house or apartment in which a stranger or guest is received or entertained is a guest house. To entertain in this context means to receive hospitably. There is therefore no doubt that the accommodation which is maintained by the assessee for providing boarding and lodging facilities to its employees and merchants is a guest house. We therefore do not agree with the view of the Tribunal that the accommodation maintained by the assessee is not a guest house. There is therefore no doubt that the accommodation which is maintained by the assessee for providing boarding and lodging facilities to its employees and merchants is a guest house. We therefore do not agree with the view of the Tribunal that the accommodation maintained by the assessee is not a guest house. Again we have to remember that what clause (i) of Section 37 (4) refers to is not a guest house but any residential accommodation in the nature of a guest house. The expression any residential accommodation in the nature of a guest housewill have much wider meaning than quest house. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot lie gain said that the accommodation in question maintained by the assessee is a residential accommodation in the nature of guest house within the meaning of clause (i) of Section 37 (4)". ( 5 ) WE have found no disparity between the factual features taken note of by the earlier Bench of this Court and the facts of the present case and hence we have to come to the same conclusion as done by the earlier Bench and hold that the building will come within the ambit of the expression used in clause (i) of Section 37 (4) referred to above. ( 6 ) IN the light of the above we are obliged to answer Question Nos. 3 and 4 regarding Assessment Years 1971-72 to 1974-75 and Question Nos. 2 and 3 relating to Assessment Year 1975-76 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. This reference stands disposed of accordingly. We make no orders as to the costs. .