JUDGMENT M. Srinivasan, C. J.—The question referred to this Court is :— “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sur-tax payable by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 for the corresponding sur tax assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income ?" 2. The Supreme Court has now held in Smith Kline and French (India) Lid. And others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (1996) 219 ITR, that the said payment cannot be allowed as deduction in computing the total income for foe corresponding year. While doing so. the Supreme Court has affirmed the judgment of Kerala High Court in A. V. Thomas and Co Ltd. v. The Commoner of Income Tax, (1986) 159 ITR 431, and reversed the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Makum Tea Co. (India) Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, (1989) 178 ITR 4S3. 3 In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court this question is no lonaer available for discussion in this Court. Hence, the reference is answered by holding that the Tribunal was right in holding that the sur-tax payable by the assessee under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 for the corresponding sur-tax assessment year cannot be allowed as a deduction in computing its total income. 4. Reference is ordered accordingly. Order accordingly.