Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN J. At the instance of the Revenue, the following two questions of law have been referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the opinion of this court under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1975-76 "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 79, 800 paid by the assessee was not revenue expenditure ? and 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the payment of Rs. 8, 000 to the Tamil Nadu Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen's Board towards Flag Day Fund and Rs. 1 lakh to the Regional Transport Authority towards Chief Minister's Rehabilitation Fund for physically handicapped were not allowable deductions ?" * In so far as the first question is concerned, learned counsel for the applicant has fairly stated that the issue involved in the question is covered by a decision of this court in Anna Transport Corporation Ltd. v. CIT 1995 (215) ITR 800 against the assessee. Following the said judgment, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee in so far as the first question is concerned In so far as the second question is concerned, the question involves the deductibility of a sum of Rs. 8, 000 paid by the assessee to the Tamil Nadu Soldiers and Sailors and Airmen's Board towards Flag Day Fund and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh to the Regional Transport Authority towards Chief Minister's Rehabilitation Fund for the physically handicapped. A similar question came up before this court in the case of CIT v. Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd. 1996 (219) ITR 203, 1996 (134) CTR 466, 1996 (88) TAXMAN 228 , 1996 (2) TLR 595, to which one of us was a party (Abdul Hadi J.), wherein it was held that the contribution to the Flag Day Fund and the Chief Minister's Rehabilitation Fund were not made in contravention of any law nor were they opposed to public policy and hence the payments had been made for business purpose and were deductible. The above view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. The above view was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkata Satyanarayana Rice Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT 1997 (223) ITR 101, 1997 (137) CTR 267, 1996 (89) TAXMAN 92, 1997 (2) TLR 40, 1996 (9) AD(SC) 95, 1997 (10) JT 384 , 1997 (1) SLJ 162, 1996 (6) SLR 617, 1996 (8) Scale 343 , 1997 (3) SCC 124 , 1997 (1) UJ 174 , 1997 AIR(SC) 182, 1997 (1) Supreme 104 , 1997 SCC(L&S) 763, 1997 SCC(L&S) 763, 1997 (137) CTR(SC) 267, 1997 SCC(L&S) 763, 1997 SCC(L&S) 763, 1997 SCC(L&S) 763, 1997 SCC(L&S) 763 where a payment was made to a public welfare fund by an assessee. Following the said decisions we answer the second question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee.