D. K. Jain ( 1 ) BY this petition under Section 256 (2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the revenue seeks a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) to state a case and refer the following questions, said to be questions of law and arising out of ITA No. 3317/del/85 pertaining to the assessment year 1977-78:. "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the deletion by the CIT (A) of the disallowance of Rs. 2,47,463/ - relating to interest claimed by the assessee on borrowed money utilised in granting interest free advances?" 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 7,200. 00being the retainership fee paid to Dr. Mithu Kothari and further allowing the entire expenses incurred on the car provided to her?" 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that a sum of Rs. 24,000. 00 does not fall u/s 80vv but is allowable u/s 37 (1) of the I. T. Act? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the provisions of Rule 6d do not apply to a foreign technician who is not an employee?" 5. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in confirming the order of the CIT (A) allowing relief of Rs. 1,64,049. 00 on the ground that the receipts on account of charity collections do not constitute trading receipts?" 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that presentations worth Rs. 52,273. 00 were allowable?" 7. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the CIT (A) had correctly deleted disallowance of Rs. 14,76,370. 00 - made u/s 40a (1) regarding commission paid to M/s Indo Euro Chemical Services (P)Ltd?" - 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in allowing relief u/ s 80-J in respect of Unit b ?" 9. 14,76,370. 00 - made u/s 40a (1) regarding commission paid to M/s Indo Euro Chemical Services (P)Ltd?" - 8. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in allowing relief u/ s 80-J in respect of Unit b ?" 9. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the computation of depreciation should be revised in accordance with appeal orders of earlier years which have not been accepted by the Department?" ( 2 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. ( 3 ) AS regards question No. l, it is not disputed by learned counsel for the assessee that in respect of assessment year 1976-77 reference on a similar question has already been called by the Allahabad High Court in the case of the assessee itself. In this view of the matter we are of the opinion that reference on the proposed question has to be called. ( 4 ) WITH regard to questions No. 2,3,7,8 and 9, it is not disputed by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the revenue, that in the case of the assessee itself reference on similar questions in respect of earlier. assessment years has been declined by the Allahabad High Court in CJT v. modipon Limited, (1991) 189 ITR 344 and CJT v. Modipon Limited (N0. 2), (1991) 189 ITR 478. Having regard to these decisions, in our opinion the proposed questions are not statable questions of law. ( 5 ) COMING to question No. 4, it is submitted by learned counsel for the revenue that although in respect of assessment year 1976-77, the Allahabad High Court in CJT v. Modipon, (1991) 189 ITR 344 has declined to call for reference on a similar question but the said decision needs re-consideration because in the said decision the Court has not correctly interpreted Rule 6d (2) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The contention is that the expression "or any other person" appearing in the said Rule indicates that Rule 6d (2) applies even to those persons who may not be the employees of the assessee, and, therefore, even though foreign technicians may not be employees of the assessee, yet expenditure incurred in. connection with their travelling has to be restricted in accordance with the said Rule. connection with their travelling has to be restricted in accordance with the said Rule. In our opinion there is no merit in trie contention. We are in respectful agreement with-the view expressed in the aforementioned decision of the Allahabad High Court that the said Rule does not apply to a foreign technician who is not an employee of the assessee. Thust, the question proposed is not fit for reference. ( 6 ) IN so far as question No. 5 is concerned, the controversy involved therein was as to whether the amount collected by the assessee as charity at Re. 1. 00 per carton of yarn sold could be treated as its trading receipt. . While accepting the assessee s view point that it could not be treated as a trading receipt, the Tribunal has merely relied on its earlier order pertaining to the assessment year 1974-75. Although it is not denied by learned counsel for the revenue that in respect of the assessment, year 1976-77 reference on a similar question has been declined by the Allahabad High Court in the case of the assessee itself (CIT v. Modipon Limited (No. 2), ( 1991) 189 ITR 478),but what is sought to be contended is that in view of certain observations in a recent decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Amritsar Transport Co. P. Ltd, (1993) 201 ITR 816, a question of law does arise from the order of the Tribunal. Learned counsel has urged that these observations also indicate that the Supreme Court has doubted the correctness of its earlier decision in CIT v. Bylee Cotton Mills (P)Ltd. , (1979) 116 ITR 60. ( 7 ) WE have gone through the judgment of the Supreme Court in Amritsar Transport. Co. (P)Ltd s case (supra) and we are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the revenue that the correctness of the decision in Biilee Cotton Mills case (supra) has been doubted in any way: While dealing with the facts in that case, the Supreme Court observed as under: "so far as inclusion of amounts collected as Dharmada which are kept in a separate account and are utilised for charitable purposes is concerned, there can be no dispute that they are not liable to be included in the income of the assessee. vide CIT v. Bijli Cotton Mills (P) Ltd (1979) 116 ITR 60 (SC) but the Revenue s case herein is that, though collected in the name of Dharmada, these amounts were neither meant for any charitable purpose nor were they spent on charitable purposes. In support of the same, they rely upon the aforesaid written reply of the respondent assessee itself. "emphasis supplied by us) ( 8 ) IT is evident from the above paragraph that in fact the Supreme Court has re-affirmed the view taken in Biilee Cotton Mills Case. In the instant case it was never the stand of the revenue that the amounts so collated by the assessee were neither meant for any charitable purpose nor were these spent on charity. In our opinion, the ratio of the decision in Amritsar Transport Company s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts in hand. Having regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in Bijlee Cotton Mills case (supra) and the Allahabad High Court in the case of the assessee itself, we decline to call for reference on the proposed question. ( 9 ) WITH regard to question No. 6 it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the assessee that for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77 no reference was sought by the revenue on similar question. Besides, it is also stated as the Bar that for the assessment year 1979- 80 the assessing officer has himself allowed a similar expenditure. In that view of the matter the proposed question is not fit for reference. ( 10 ) CONSEQUENTLY, we direct the Tribunal to refer question No. l alongwith an appropriate statement of the case for the opinion of this Court. There will, however, be no order as to costs.