Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. This is a combined reference for the asst. yr. 1974-75 both at the instance of the assessee as well as at the instance of the Revenue. The Tribunal at the instance of both the assessee and the Revenue has stated a case and referred the following questions of law for our opinion under s. 256(1) of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for the asst. yr. 1974-75: "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of the surtax payable for the year in computing its total income for the asst. yr. 1974-75. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the gratuity fund has already been approved and accordingly directing the ITO to allow it if the other conditions under s. 40A(7) are satisfied for the asst. yr. 1974-75 ?" 2. In so far as the first question of law referred to at the instance of the assessee is concerned, the point that arises is whether the assessee would be entitled to deduction of surtax paid by the assessee in the computing the total income for the asst. yr. 1974-75. A similar question whether the surtax paid by a company is deductible in the computation of the company's business income came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Smith Kline & French (I) Ltd. vs. CIT 1996 (8) SCC 579 , 1996 (4) JT 231 , 1996 (3) Scale 562 , 1996 (3) Supreme 716 , 1996 (4) AD(SC) 22, 1996 (219) ITR 581, 1996 (132) CTR 500, 1996 (85) TAXMAN 683, 1996 (132) CTR(DC) 500, 1996 (132) CTR(SC) 500 (SC) and the apex Court in that case held that the surtax levied on the company's profit cannot be allowed as deduction while computing the business income of the assessee as per the provisions of the IT Act, 1961. Following the said decision of the apex Court, we answer the question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the affirmative and against the assessee 3. Following the said decision of the apex Court, we answer the question of law referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the affirmative and against the assessee 3. In so far as the second question of law referred to at the instance of the Revenue is concerned, as already seen, it is a reference for the asst. yr. 1974-75 and the Tribunal has followed its earlier order in ITA No. 1555/Mad/76-77, dt. 21st December, 1978. As against that earlier order for the asst. yr. 1973-74, we answered the question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue in Tax Case Nos. 220 and 221 of 1981 [reported as Carborandum Universal Ltd. vs. CIT 1998 (148) CTR(Mad) 541] by judgment of even date and therein we upheld the order of the Tribunal and answered the question of law referred to us against the Revenue. Following the said decision in Tax Case Nos. 220 and 221 of 1981 (supra) of even date, we answer the question of law referred to us in this reference at the instance of the Revenue in the affirmative and against the Revenue for the asst. yr. 1974-75 as well. There will be no order as to costs.