Judgment :- SMT. A. SUBBULAKSHMY J. The assessee-firm claimed that it carries on the business of clearing and shipping agents and so, it should be taxed at the lower rate applicable to firms which carry on profession as provided in the Finance Act, 1982. The Income-tax Officer rejected the contention of the assessee. On appeal, the Commissioner of Income-tax held that the business of the assessee-firm could be treated as profession for calculating tax at the concessional rate provided under sub-paragraph II of paragraph C of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1982. The Department preferred an appeal to the Tribunal and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, following the order of the Tribunal in respect of the same assessee for the earlier assessment years, held that the activities of a customs clearing and forwarding agent require knowledge of customs law and port regulations and ability to handle the customs and dockyard personnel and as such their activities would amount to carrying on a profession and accordingly, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. On that, at the instance of the Revenue, the following questions are referred to this court for opinion, "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the business of the assessee-firm could be treated as a profession for calculating the tax at the concessional rate provided under sub-paragraph II of paragraph C of the First Schedule of the Finance Act, 1982 ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that even an assessee who carries on the business of leasing machinery owned by it to the others who carried on the business of manufacture or production of articles other than those specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, is entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the said Act ?" With regard to question number 1 learned counsel for the Revenue invited our attention to the order of this court in respect of the same assessee in Tax Cases Nos. 2091 to 2094 of 1984, dated February 19, 1998 (CIT v. International Clearing and Shipping Agency. In the abovesaid case, the same question of law came up for consideration and this court, following the decision of the Supreme court in Cochin Shipping Co. 2091 to 2094 of 1984, dated February 19, 1998 (CIT v. International Clearing and Shipping Agency. In the abovesaid case, the same question of law came up for consideration and this court, following the decision of the Supreme court in Cochin Shipping Co. v. ESI Corporation, held that (page 174), "The assistance rendered by the clearing and shipping agent to those who import or export, by attending to the documentation and ensuring the clearance of goods, cannot be regarded as profession based on intellectual attainments or personal service rendered on account of possession of specialised skill and knowledge based on higher learning and intellectual skill." and answered the question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Applying the same reasoning, we answer the first question of law in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee carries on the business of leasing machinery owned by it to the others who carry on the business of manufacture or production of articles other than those specified in the Eleventh Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 wherein it has been held that, "Where the business of the assessee consists of hiring out machinery and/or where the income derived by the assessee from the hiring of such machinery is business income, the assessee must be considered as having used the machinery for the purpose of its business ... a leasing or finance company, which owns machinery and leases it to third parties who use the machinery for manufacture of articles or things as specified in section 32A(2)(b)(iii) is entitled to investment allowance in respect of such machinery under section 32A". Following the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, we answer the second question of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.