JUDGMENT Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this Court on a petition by the assessee :- i) Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has been right in law in holding that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of sur-tax payable by it in pursuance to the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964, in arriving at the taxable income ? ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT rightly upheld the disallowance of the expenditure of Rs. 4500/- in respect of Conference expenses ? iii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ITAT was right in holding that no weighted deduction under section 35B is available in respects of freight expenses of Rs. 7,75,541/-, octroi duty of Rs. 82,171/-, Insurance charges of Rs. 73,376/- and other expenses such as loading, unloading and conveyance expenses amounting to Rs. 327/- ?" 2. Even the Revenue had sought a reference. The Tribunal has referred the following question for the opinion of this Court :- "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that medical expenses by way of premium for Group Medical Insurance Scheme and reimbursements of medical expenses, electricity, gas and water charges, which are in the nature of cash payments, shall not be treated as perquisites while computing disallowance under section 40-A(5) of the I.T. Act, 1961 ?" 3. So far as the question referred to this Court at the instance of the assessee are concerned, Mr. Sawhney points out that the matter is concluded between the parties by the decision in 231 ITR 726. It has been held that the sur-tax paid under the Companies (Profits) Sur-tax Act, 1964 is not an allowable deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(iii). Even the deduction of Rs. 4500/- on account of conference expenses cannot be allowed in view of the decision. No distinguishing feature has been pointed out by Mr. A.K. Mittal who has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. On an examination of the matter, we are satisfied that the issues raised in the case by the assessee are concluded against it by the aforesaid decision. These are, accordingly, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5. A.K. Mittal who has appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. On an examination of the matter, we are satisfied that the issues raised in the case by the assessee are concluded against it by the aforesaid decision. These are, accordingly, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 5. As for the question regarding the payment on account of the Group Medical Insurance Scheme, the matter is concluded by the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mafatlal Gangabhai and Co. (P) Ltd., 219 ITR 644. It has been held by their Lordships that where an assessee makes payment in cash in respect of an obligation of the employee to a third party, it would not come within the mischief of Section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 6. Resultantly, this question is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 7. Both the references are answered accordingly. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Reference answered.