M. K. SHARMA ( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 256 (2) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter called the Act) filed by the Revenue seeking to refer the following questions stated to be questions of law, to this court for its opinion, relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 1 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in entertaining the claim of the assessee about capitalisation of interest at Rs 74. 68. 356 - which claim was made by the assessee for the first time before the ITAI and the issue decided did not arise from the order of the CIT (A)? 2 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that disallowance u/s 40-A (8) could not be made in respect of interest amounting to Rs 74,68,356/- out of the total interest at Rs 4. 09. 16,601/- on public deposits? 3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expenses of Rs 9,164/- on Railway Tickets and taxi hire were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and were also not disallowable under Section 37 (2a) of the IT Act? 4 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the ITAT was correct in law in reducing disallowance of Rs 2,66,198. 00 to Rs. 66,198. 00 in respect of sale promotion expenses for which complete details were not furnished and the amount was also disallowable under Rule 6-B of the Income Tax Rules? 5 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 35,405/- incurred on foreign tours in connection with issue of debentures could not be taken as a capital expenditure even though these tours were undertaken for advertising the new issue of debentures? 6 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expenses on traveling within India at Rs 1,39,240/- were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business even though no evidence in support of the claim was filed by the assessee? 6 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expenses on traveling within India at Rs 1,39,240/- were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business even though no evidence in support of the claim was filed by the assessee? 7 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 52,3777- incurred on traveling of employees for the purposes of tyre cord plant expansion, acrylic fibre plant expansion and other new projects were revenue in nature? 8 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled for deductions towards provision for Octroi duty even though the liability for the same was stayed by the High Court? 9 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was corrct in law in holding that expenses representing contiibution to college building at Rs. 40. 000. 00. contribution to school at Rs 70 897. 00 - and test Match tickets to staff members at Rs 20 150/- were business expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business? 10 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the expenses of Rs 1,02,482/- on building repairs were not a capital expenditure even though by incurring such expenditure the assessee had received benefit of enduring nature? 11 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 26 956/- on conversion of existing cone winding machine, Rs 15,90,061/- on major overhauling ,of diesel engine and Rs 30,696/- on modification of weights were revenue in nature even though the assessee had obtained benefit of enduring nature by incurring such expenses? 12. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled to E S A on air- conditioning machine installed in the Nylon and Acrylic units? 13 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses on issue of debentures were revenue in nature? 13 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case, the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses on issue of debentures were revenue in nature? 14 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case. the ITAT was correct in law in holding that assessee was entitled for deduction towards interest on employees welfare fund at Rs 1,36. 943/- even though the assessee did not part with the fund? 15. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case the ITAT was correct in law in holding that expenses of Rs 46, 742/- debited in general charges a/c under public relation expenditure were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business? 16 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case. the ITAT was correct in law in admitting additional grounds of appeal taken up by the assessee even though the issues did not arise from the order ofthe CIT ( A)? 17 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case. the ITAT was correct in law in holding that the assessee was entitled for deduction at Rs 84,540/- being premium payable on redemption of debentures which was not an expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business and was in any case a capital expenditure? ( 2 ) WE have examined the questions proposed and also heard the learned counsel for the parties who have taken us through the order of the Tribunal rejecting the application under Section 256 ( 1) of the Act as also the order passed by the Tribunal in the appeal, out of which the aforesaid questions of law are stated to have arisen ( 3 ) WE have considered question No 1 and we find that the said question does not give rise to any question of law as the answer to this question is self-evident. On consideration of question No 2. however, we feel that the same is a question of law for it would involve interpretation of the provisions of Section 40a (8) of the Act and is required to be called for the opinion of this court. The question No 3 however as framed by the Revenue appears to be based on findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The same therefore, does not give rise to any question of law. The question No 3 however as framed by the Revenue appears to be based on findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The same therefore, does not give rise to any question of law. ( 4 ) THE question No 4, in our considered opinion, is a question of law as it would involve interpretation of the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and applicability thereof to the issues raised in the present case. So far question No. 5 is concerned it is brought to our notice that a similar question has already been called for by this court in ITC No. 231/1992 being question No. 5 therein. We accordingly, call for reference on the aforesaid two questions as well. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the Revenue submitted in respect of question No 6 that the said question is connected with Question No. 4 and therefore, is required to be called for However, on appreciation of the order passed by the Tribunal we find that the said question has been framed on findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and therefore, no question of law arises therefrom and we decline to call for the said question. ( 6 ) IN respect of question No 7. we are of the considered opinion that the said question revolves around - as to whether the expenses incurred to the extent of Rs 52,377/- on the traveling of employees are in the nature of capital expenditure or revenue expenditure We feel that the said question is a question of law and therefore, requires to be called for reference to this court for its opinion ( 7 ) QUESTIONS No 8 and 9 appear to have been framed similar to that of question No 13 in ITC 232/1996 and questions No 3 and 6 of ltc 57/1991 which were not called for by this court It is also brought to our notice that Special Leave Petitions filed against the aforesaid orders of this court were also rejected In view of the fact that similar questions have not been called for by this court and SI. Ps against the said orders have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to call for reference of the said questions. Ps against the said orders have been dismissed by the Supreme Court, we are not inclined to call for reference of the said questions. ( 8 ) QUESTION No 10 as framed by the Revenue appears to be based on findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and therefore, we do not propose to call for a reference of the said question as well ( 9 ) IN respect of question No 11 we find that the aforesaid question is based on findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal Besides in terms of the aforesaid expenses no new asset came into being and accordingly the same appears to us to be in the nature of revenue expenditure and. therefore, is not required to be called for opinion of this court. ( 10 ) QUESTION No 12 appears to be a question of law inasmuch as it involves interpretation with regard to applicability of Appendix 1 to Rule 5 to the facts of the present case and therefore, we propose to call for a reference on the said question ( 11 ) QUESTION No 13 as is framed by the Revenue on the face of it appears to us to be a question of law and accordingly, we call for reference of the said question Questions No 14 and 15 on the other hand do not appear to us to be questions of law It is also brought to our notice that similar questions raised by the Revenue in ITC No 13211992 being questions No 6 and 14 respectively have not been called for by this court and the application under Section 256 (2) has been rejected Accordingly. question Nos 14 and 15 are not required to be referred to this court ( 12 ) IN respect of question No 16, in our opinion, in view of the decision in Taylor Instrument Co. (India) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax; 198 ITR page 1, the answer to this question appears to be self evident It is settled law that additional grounds could be agitated when facts in respect of the same are existing and therefore, we do not feel inclined to call for a reference of this question to this court for its opinion ( 13 ) QUESTION No 17. in our considered opinion, is a question of law inasmuch as whether premium paid was in the nature of interest or was a capital expenditure is definitely a question of law ( 14 ) IN the result, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer questions No 2. 4,5, 7,12, 13 and 17 to this court alongwith the statement of case for its opinion The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.