Judgment :- R. JAYASIMHA BABU, J. For the same assessment year the questions have been referred at the instance of the assessee as also the Department. The assessment year is 1980-81. The question referred at the instance of the assessee is as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that additional depreciation is not allowable under s. 32(1)(iia) of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of the machinery leased out to approved hotels by the company. The assessee is a leasing company which leased out equipment to its customers, some of whom are hotels. The extra depreciation allowance has been claimed in respect of machinery leased to hotels, solely on the ground that hotels are entitled to such depreciation as the machinery is used in the hotel. This claim of the assessee has been negatived, and rightly so, by the Tribunal. Under the provisions of s. 32 of the IT Act such extra depreciation allowance can be claimed in respect of machinery installed and used in a hotel only when it is used by the assessee. The hotel also has to be an approved hotel by the Central Government and then only the claim can be entertained. The same question had been raised by the assessee in an earlier asst. yr. 1976-77 and that question came up for consideration before this Court in T.C. No. 522 of 1986 [reported as CIT vs. First Leasing Co. of India Ltd. 2000 (161) CTR(Mad) 520]. That claim was negatived for the same reason as the one we have recorded above. The questions that have been referred to us at the instance of the Revenue are five in number and they read as under, "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amounts of medical reimbursement, personal accident insurance, electricity charges and salary to servants should not be considered for arriving at the overall limit for disallowance under s. 40A(5) ?(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance under s. 32A on the machinery leased out to other company ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the assessee is entitled to investment allowance even though there is no activity of manufacturing or production of any article by the assessee ? (4) Whether the Tribunal's view that the value of machinery owned and leased out by the assessee and used in the manufacture of an article by a different person would be eligible for investment allowance under s. 32A ? (5) Whether the Tribunal was correct in law and on facts in holding that the assessee would not be disqualified from claiming the investment allowance under s. 32A(5) of the IT Act, 1961 ?" We may conveniently dispose of question Nos. 2 to 5 as the answer to those questions has been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs. Shaan Finance (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court in that case which also concerns this assessee, held that notwithstanding the fact that the assessee is a leasing company and the plant and machinery leased out by it are not used by the assessee in any industry the assessee is entitled to investment allowance. We answer question Nos. 2 to 5 referred to us at the instance of the Revenue, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The first question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is also a question to which the answer has already been provided in a decision of the Supreme Court. That decision is the one rendered by the apex Court in CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. The Supreme Court therein considered the question as to whether the cash payments made by an employer to the employee can be regarded as perquisites under s. 40(a)(v) or under s. 40A(5)(a)(ii), as the case may be. The apex Court held that such cash payments do not amount to perquisitesLearned counsel for the assessee, however, sought to make a distinction between "allowance" and "reimbursement", Counsel submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Mafatlal Gangabhai & Co. (P) Ltd. (supra), was concerned primarily with allowance paid in cash, and not the reimbursement of expenditure when such expenditure had been incurred by the recipient. Counsel sought to confine the meaning cash payment only to allowance, and exclude from its ambit "reimbursement". (P) Ltd. (supra), was concerned primarily with allowance paid in cash, and not the reimbursement of expenditure when such expenditure had been incurred by the recipient. Counsel sought to confine the meaning cash payment only to allowance, and exclude from its ambit "reimbursement". A reading of the decision of the apex Court, however, does not support the submission so made by counsel. The Court did not make any distinction as between allowance and reimbursement. The Court was considering allowance as also reimbursement and the payment in cash of such allowance or reimbursement. The facts of one of the cases considered by the Supreme Court set out at p. 650 clearly show that the medical reimbursement was one of the items that was before the Court, and that such medical reimbursement had been described along with the allowance as "cash payments". The facts of another appeal which was also before the Court and which was also disposed of by the same judgment refer only to allowances. The judgment delivered by the Court was on all the appeals, which were heard together. It is not a judgment confined to the civil appeal the facts of which are set out in p. 651 of the report. The conclusion of the Court was that cash payment paid by the assessee to its employees do not fall within the ambit of s. 40(a)(v) or s. 40A(5)(a)(ii). The cash payments referred to in the judgment of the Supreme Court include cash payments whether paid as allowance or paid as reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by an employee such as medical reimbursement. The first question referred to us at the instance of the Revenue is therefore to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs.