ORDER BY THE COURT : This is IT reference at the instance of the Revenue under s. 256(1) IT Act, 1961 and following two questions of law have been referred by the Tribunal for answer by this Court : (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that tax deducted at source outside India from foreign dividend and interest income, was not part of total income and, thus, not assessable in the hands of the assessee under the IT Act, 1961 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the stallions and mares are plants within the meaning of s. 43(3) of the IT Act, 1961 for the purpose of depreciation under s. 32 of the Act ? 2. The assessment years are 1983-84 and 1984-85. The assessees are co-heirs of the estate of late Rashid Jaffar Khan, each having 14/48th share therein. The said estate had foreign income of dividend and interest. The assessees earned income in UK out of which income tax was deducted in UK. The AO included gross amount of the said income in the total income of the assessees. The assessees filed appeal before the CIT(A) with the objection that the net amount and not the gross amount should have been included in their respective total income. The appeal was accepted by the CIT(A). Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal upheld the stand of the assessees that only net income and not the gross income was includible in their income. The Revenue moved the Tribunal for referring the question to the High Court and accordingly question No. 1 has been referred by Tribunal for answer by this Court. Question No. 1 has already been answered by us in the case of CIT vs. Yawar Rashid & Ors. (1996) 218 ITR 699 (MP) against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid order, the Question No. 1 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. 3. Question No. 1 has already been answered by us in the case of CIT vs. Yawar Rashid & Ors. (1996) 218 ITR 699 (MP) against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. For the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid order, the Question No. 1 is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessees. 3. So far as the Question No. 2 whether the mares are plan within the meaning of s. 43(3) of the IT Act for the purpose of depreciation under s. 32 is concerned, suffice to say that question does not survive in view of amendment in s. 43(3) of the Act by Finance Act of 1995 w.e.f. 1st April, 1962 that the tea bushes and livestock are not included in the definition of plant. In this view of the matter, this question is answered in favour of Revenue and against assessees.