JUDGMENT : G.T. Nanavati, J. The questions which are referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are as follows : "(1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of contribution for accommodation expenses of Rs. 3,000 treating the same as expenditure hit by the provisions of section 37(4) of the Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in confirming the disallowance of salary of Rs. 2,100 paid to a pujari holding the same as non-business expenditure ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim of gratuity liability of Rs. 17,81,503 on various alternative grounds and under various provisions of the Act with special reference to section 28 of the Act ?" 2. As regards question No.3, the learned advocate appearing for the assessee at the outset conceded that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1985) 156 ITR 585 , the view taken by the Tribunal has to be regarded as correct and, therefore, that question will have to be answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Therefore, it is not necessary to state the facts relating to that question. 3. The assessee was having an arrangement with Suru Private Limited. The assessee's officers whenever they went to Bombay were provided with lodging facilities in the residential accommodation maintained by Suru Private Limited. For that purpose, the assessee was paying Rs. 3,000 per annum to Suru Private Limited. The assessee claimed deduction of this amount during the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74. It had in the past also claimed deduction of that amount as business expenditure. It appears that the claim of the assessee was consistently rejected by the Tribunal and following the decision of the Tribunal, the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and even the Tribunal rejected the claim for the assessment year 1973-74 also. The claim was disallowed on the ground that it was hit by the provisions of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had also claimed deduction of Rs. The claim was disallowed on the ground that it was hit by the provisions of section 37(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had also claimed deduction of Rs. 2,100 paid by way of salary to a pujari employed by the assessee. Though it is not specifically stated in the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, it appears that the assessee was having a temple within the mill premises and the pujari was employed in connection with the said temple. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the said claim on the ground that since the company has no soul to invoke the blessings of God by homam and puja, the said expenditure cannot be regarded as business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer also relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Bhanna Mal and Co. P. Ltd. (1971) 82 ITR 138 , for taking that view. The Appellate Assistant commissioner and the Tribunal confirmed that view. Thereupon, the assessee moved the Tribunal for referring the above-stated questions. 4. What is contended by learned counsel for the assessee is that the assessee was not maintaining any residential accommodation at Bombay and, therefore, it was an error to proceed on the basis that Rs. 3,000 were spent for maintenance of a guest house for residential accommodation. It is not in dispute that the guest house was maintained by Suru Private Limited and that the assessee was paying only charges for stay by its officers while they visited Bombay for the assessee's work. Suru Private Limited was itself a tenant of the said premises and in those premises, it was running a guest house. It is not the case of the Revenue that it was a hotel. The assessee had not hired the residential accommodation but what the assessee was paying was charges for staying there and for using the telephone. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how the said expenditure was hit by section 37(4) of the Act as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The said expenditure was incurred by the assessee for its business purposes and as such, it was a deductible expenditure. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,000. 5. It is, therefore, difficult to appreciate how the said expenditure was hit by section 37(4) of the Act as held by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. The said expenditure was incurred by the assessee for its business purposes and as such, it was a deductible expenditure. The Tribunal was, therefore, wrong in confirming disallowance of Rs. 3,000. 5. As regards salary paid to pujari, it was contended that even the said expenditure was for the purpose of business of the assessee as it was incurred in the larger interest of the business of the assessee. It was submitted that the temple was maintained in the mill premises not for the benefit of any person for religious purpose only but was maintained by way of an amenity for the workers. It was really by way of a welfare measure. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. CIT (1982) 134 ITR 458 . In that case, the assessee had built a temple and the amount given by it by way of grant to the temple for its management and depreciation of the building was claimed as deduction. In that context, the Punjab and Haryana High Court observed as under (at page 465) : "It cannot be disputed that a satisfied worker is a great asset to the business and the satisfaction of the worker not only depends upon the packet which he receives at the end of the month but also on the other amenities provided to him by his employer. . . . If the workers can overcome their boredom by playing cards in a club, we see no reason for holding that they cannot achieve the same result by singing hymns in a temple. Besides, we see no reason to place any curbs on the discretion of the assessee to provide the type of recreation, which, according to it, would best advance the interests of its business. What we have to see is whether the recreation provided, even if it be in the nature of religious activity, has a direct nexus with the welfare of a class of the workers engaged by the assessee or not. What we have to see is whether the recreation provided, even if it be in the nature of religious activity, has a direct nexus with the welfare of a class of the workers engaged by the assessee or not. If the answer to this proposition is in the affirmative, it is wholly immaterial if the recreation provided is directly or indirectly connected with the religious tenets of a section of the society." 6. These observations indicate the correct approach to be adopted while deciding whether an expenditure can be regarded as business expenditure or not. As it is often said, such questions are not to be decided on the subjective belief of the taxing authorities but on commercial expediency and principles of commercial trading. It is for the assessee to decide what is in the interest of its business and, therefore, if the nexus between the expenditure and the business of the assessee or welfare of a class of his workers is established, then it can be said that the expenditure incurred by him is for the purpose of his business. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Brijraman Das and Sons v. CIT (1983) 142 ITR 509 . In that case, expenditure of Rs. 958 incurred for puja of Lord Ganesh was claimed as expenditure incurred in furtherance of the assessee's business. The question that was required to be considered was whether expenses of puja of Lord Ganesh can be disallowed under section 37(1) of the Act. What was contended on behalf of the assessee was that it was customary expenditure incurred by the Hindus and, therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to hold that it was in the nature of personal expenditure of the assessee and had not been laid out exclusively for the purpose of the business. The Allahabad High Court held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were wrong in holding that such expenditure was personal expenditure. It held that since it was customary for Hindu traders to perform puja of Lord Ganesh in connection with the trade, it would not be correct to say that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for its business was not connected with its trade and was its personal expenditure incurred at its house for personal solace. It held that since it was customary for Hindu traders to perform puja of Lord Ganesh in connection with the trade, it would not be correct to say that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for its business was not connected with its trade and was its personal expenditure incurred at its house for personal solace. The Allahabad High Court also referred to the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes by which it was recognised that such customary expenditure is made at the time of Dipavali and Mahurat and that it should be allowed as deduction. Thus, customary expenditure, even though of a religious nature, has been treated as expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for business. Such expenditure was considered as expenditure incurred in the interest of the business. This decision also supports the contention raised on behalf of the assessee. Learned counsel for the Revenue placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in Bhanna Mal's case (1971) 82 ITR 138 . In that case, the question raised was whether the expenditure incurred towards the salary of the pujari could be said to have been incurred for carrying on the business of the assessee. The Delhi High Court answered the question in the negative by holding that such expenditure cannot be said to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee and, therefore, it was not an admissible deduction. In taking that view, the Delhi High Court applied the test laid down in CIT v. Malayalam Plantations Ltd. (1964) 53 ITR 140 (SC). It then observed that the expenditure incurred for invoking the blessings of Gods and Goddesses for prosperity had no relationship to the carrying on of the business by the assessee. The Delhi High Court held on the facts of that case that it was difficult to hold that the expenditure in question was incurred for the purpose of carrying on the business of the assessee and that the assessee had incurred the same as a businessman. What is required to be noted is that in that case, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the pujari was employed for invoking the blessings of Gods and Goddesses for the benefit of the assessee. The said expenses were incurred by the assessee because of his belief in supernatural blessings. What is required to be noted is that in that case, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that the pujari was employed for invoking the blessings of Gods and Goddesses for the benefit of the assessee. The said expenses were incurred by the assessee because of his belief in supernatural blessings. It was in this context that the Delhi High Court held that such expenses cannot be regarded as expenses incurred for the purpose of carrying on business and that such expenditure was incurred as a businessman. The facts of the present case are quite different because, here, we are concerned with the temple maintained by the assessee. There is nothing to show that the said temple was maintained with the help of a pujari for the personal benefit of any person. Thus, the temple appears to have been maintained by the assessee mill company for the general benefit of its employees and for that reason, we hold that the said expenditure was neither of personal nature nor of a purely religious nature but was incurred for the purpose of or in the interest of the business of the assessee. 7. For the reasons stated above, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.