Judgment :- ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. Pursuant to the direction given by this Court following questions have been referred by Tribunal, Cochin Bench, (in short 'the Tribunal') in proceedings under section 256 (2) of the IT Act,1961 (in short 'the Act'). "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee, engaged in the processing and export of shrimps, is entitled to the benefit of section 80HH and section 80-I of the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee engaged in the processing and export of shrimps, is entitled to the benefit of investment allowance under section 32A of the IT Act, 1961, in respect of computer TA and ice plant ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case : (i) The commission of Rs. 1,08,030 claimed to have been paid by the assessee to foreign agents is an allowable deduction under section35B (1)(b)(iv) of the IT Act. (ii) Do the assessee satisfy the conditions laid down in section 35B (1)(b)(iv) to claim deduction of the commission said TA to have been paid to foreign agents under section 35B (1)(b)(iv) ? 2. So far as the first two questions are concerned the decision of the apex Court in CIT vs. Relish Foods (1999) 152 CTR (SC) 500: (1999) 237 ITR 59 (SC) is squarely applicable. Therefore, these questions are answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as the third question is concerned, learned counsel for the Revenue referred to the decision of the apex Court in Aravinda Paramila Works vs. CIT (1999) 153 CTR (SC) 205 : (1999) 237 ITR 284 (SC), where it was observed as follows : "What is required is an analysis of the provisions of section 35B (1)(b)(iv). The expenditure that is referred to TA therein has to be incurred on the maintenance outside India of a branch, office or agency for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities. Therefore, what is requisite is that the assessee should have maintained the branch, office or agency outside India. It is also requisite that such branch, office or agency should be for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities. Therefore, what is requisite is that the assessee should have maintained the branch, office or agency outside India. It is also requisite that such branch, office or agency should be for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities. When payment is made, as here, by an assessee of commission to agents outside India who had procured orders, the requirements of cl. (iv) are far from satisfied. There is, in the first place, no maintenance by the assessee of the agency. Secondly, the expenditure has to be incurred on the promotion of sales of the assessee' goods outside India. When expenditure is incurred by way of payment of commission on particular sales that is not expenditure on the promotion of the assessee's sales in general." It has to be factually found out that the assessee had maintained office or agency outside India. This factual aspect has not been considered by the lower pforums. It is appropriate to direct the Tribunal to give specific finding on the question whether the assessee had maintained office or agency outside India. Answer to this question would depend upon the adjudication of the factual aspects. The parties shall be permitted to adduce material before the Tribunal, so far as this question is concerned. The reference is accordingly disposed of.