Judgment :- THANIKKACHALAM, J. At the instance of the assessee, the Tribunal referred the following common question for our opinion Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in disallowing a sum of Rs. 60, 000 during 1977-78 and Rs. 55, 000 during 1978-79 as representing the pension paid to the widow of Anantharamakrishnan in computing the income of the assessee-company. The assessee is a company whose shares were held by the estate of the late S. Anantharamakrishnan. The assessee-company paid a pension of Rs. 60, 000 during 1977-78 and Rs. 55, 000 during 1978-79 to one Valli Anantharamakrishnan, wife of the late Anantharamakrishnan, who was the chairman of the assessee-company from 1952 till the date of his death on April 18, 1964. The board of directors of the assessee-company resolved to pay a pension of Rs. 5, 000 per mensem to the widow taking note of the services rendered by Anantharamakrishnan. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction on the ground that there was no agreement between the assessee-company and Anantharamakrishnan for the payment of any pension and that Anantharamakrishnan was not an employee of the assessee-company and so the payment was not to the widow of an employee. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) upheld the order of the Income-tax Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal confirmed the disallowance made by the authorities below. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of Amalgamations(P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1995 (214) ITR 396, 1996 (130) CTR 436, 1996 (84) TAXMAN 300 (Mad) in Tax Cases Nos. 1109, 1110 and 1180 of 1979 for the assessment years 1969-70 to 1971-72 to which one of us was a party (Thanikkachalam J.), wherein by order dated August 30, 1994, this court answered the question referred to it at the instance of the assessee in-the affirmative and against the assessee. Since the facts and circumstances arising in the present case are similar and identical to the earlier case, following the earlier decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.