JUDGMENT B.A. Khan, J. 1. The Revenue has filed this application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for requiring the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer the following two questions, stated to be questions of law arising out of its order dated August 16, 1995 : "(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 4,48,819 received by the assessee as subsidy was receipt of capital nature ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had evidence before it to hold that there was no nexus between the receipts and business activities of the assessee so as to hold the amount as not a revenue receipt ?" 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of exhibition of films and runs a cinema. He is said to have received a sum of Rs. 4,48,819 in the accounting year relevant to the assessment year 1989-90 as subsidy under the scheme framed by the State Government called "Grant-in-aid Rules of Incentive Planning for construction of new cinema halls in Madhya Pradesh, 1982". He claimed it as a capital receipt which was not accepted by the Assessing Officer who declared it as a revenue receipt and thus taxable. He consequently took an appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) but failed. He then carried a further appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and succeeded there. 3. The Tribunal referring to some judgments on the subject-matter concluded that the Revenue authorities had erred in treating the disputed amount as revenue receipt. The Revenue thereafter filed an application under Section 256(1) asking the Tribunal to refer the above stated questions for the opinion of this court which was rejected. Hence, this application under Section 256(2) for asking the Tribunal to make the requisite reference. 4. Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253, laying down the test for determination whether a particular subsidy received was to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt and also the judgment of this court in CITv. 4. Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253, laying down the test for determination whether a particular subsidy received was to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt and also the judgment of this court in CITv. Dusad Industries [1986] 162 ITR 784 and also that the provisions of the scheme in question required appreciation, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to refer question No. (i) and to submit the statement of case for the opinion of this court. The other question which is by and larg'e covered by the first one was not referable. Application is disposed of.