Judgment :- N. V. BALASUBRAMANIAN, J. At the instance of the Revenue, the Appellate Tribunal has stated a case and referred the following three questions of law for the assessment year 1978-79 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of incentive bonus in excess of the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act is an allowable deduction notwithstanding section 36(1)(ii)? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the subsidy received will not go to reduce the cost of the assets and consequently depreciation and investment allowance should not be calculated at the lower figure ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the guarantee commission paid to a bank for purchase of capital asset is allowable as revenue expenditure ?" The first question refers to the allowability of expenditure made by way of incentive bonus under the industrial settlement arrived at between the management and the employees in the assessee-company dated November 12, 1977. We have taken a view in T. C. No. 984 of 1985 (CIT v. Bhavani Mills Ltd. 1999 (237) ITR 855, 1998 (150) CTR 336, 1998 (2) TLR 230, by judgment of even date that the incentive bonus paid is not allowable under the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, but it is allowable under the provisions of section 37 of the Act. The Tribunal has come to the correct conclusion and held that the incentive bonus paid in excess of the bonus payable under the Payment of Bonus Act is allowable under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the first question in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In so far as the second question is concerned, the point that arises is whether the subsidy received by the assessee will go to reduce the cost of the assets and, consequently, the assessee will be entitled to depreciation and investment allowance after deduction of subsidy amount received from the actual cost of the assets. In so far as the second question is concerned, the point that arises is whether the subsidy received by the assessee will go to reduce the cost of the assets and, consequently, the assessee will be entitled to depreciation and investment allowance after deduction of subsidy amount received from the actual cost of the assets. The Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. P. J. Chemicals Ltd. 1994 AIR(SC) 2727, 1994 (210) ITR 830, 1994 (6) JT 330 , 1994 (4) Scale 337 , 1994 (S3) SCC 535, 1994 (121) CTR 201, 1994 (76) TAXMAN 611, 1994 (121) CTR(SC) 201, held that the subsidy received by the assessee will not go to reduce the cost of the assets and, consequently, the depreciation and investment allowance should not be calculated at the lower figure. We answer the second question in the affirmative and against the RevenueThe third question relates to the payment of guarantee commission paid to a bank for purchase of capital asset is allowable as business expenditure. This court in Sivakami Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 (120) ITR 211, 1980 (14) CTR 277, 1980 (14) CTR(Mad) 277, has held that the guarantee commission paid is allowable as business expenditure. Mr. C. V. Rajan, learned counsel for the Department, stated that the above decision of this court has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court in C. A. No. 6488 of 1983 by order dated February 4, 1997, (CIT v. Sivakami Mills Ltd. 1997 (227) ITR 465, 1997 (11) SCC 283 , 1997 (95) Taxman 73, 1998 (144) CTR(SC) 172). Following the decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the third question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. In the result, we answer all the three questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.