Judgment :- GULAB C. GUPTA J. This is a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), at the instance of the Revenue, requesting decision of this court on the following two questions of law "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the royalty payments made to the foreign collaborator are deductible in full as revenue expenditure ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Kottayam unit of the assessee was a new industrial undertaking entitled to deduction under section 80J ?" The respondent-company manufactures automobile tyres and tubes and earns income by selling the same. The assessee had, for the purpose of this business, a collaboration agreement with Messrs. Mansfield Tyre and Rubber Company, U. S. A., under which it paid technical fees to the collaborators and claimed the full amount as revenue expenditure. The Income-tax Officer disallowed twenty-five per cent. of the technical fees amounting to Rs. 8, 47, 033. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the entire amount as business expenditure following the decision of the Appellate Tribunal for the earlier assessment year 1971-72. The Appellate Tribunal also confirmed the deduction of the entire expenditure as in the earlier assessment years and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. The first question referred to this court relates to this deduction of technical fee as revenue expenditure The assessee has also put up an industrial unit at Kottayam where it is manufacturing automobile tyres and tubes. It claimed deduction under section 80J as a new industrial undertaking in relation to this unit. The Income-tax Officer refused the relief, but the Commissioner of Income-tax allowed the same on appeal, mainly because the said relief had been granted in the earlier assessment years. The Appellate Tribunal affirmed the said judgment of the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Revenue, however, felt aggrieved by the same and secured reference of the second question for the decision of this court. That is how the two questions are before this court for decisionThe matter relating to the earlier assessment year in relation to this very assessee had come to this court and received attention in CIT v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (No. 2). That is how the two questions are before this court for decisionThe matter relating to the earlier assessment year in relation to this very assessee had come to this court and received attention in CIT v. Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. (No. 2). This court has in its judgment answered both the questions against the Revenue and held that the entire amount of technical fee paid to the foreign collaborator was deductible as revenue expenditure. This court has also held that the Kottayam unit of the assessee was a new industrial undertaking entitled to deduction under section 80J of the Act Nothing whatsoever is brought to our notice to distinguish the aforesaid judgment either on the facts or on law. In the circumstances, there is no reason why the said judgment should not be operative in the instant case also. Hence, our answer to the first question is that the entire payment of technical fee by the assessee to the foreign company under the terms of the collaboration agreement is deductible as revenue expenditure. As regards question No. 2, our answer is that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Kottayam unit of the assessee was a new industrial undertaking entitled to deduction under section 80J of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.