D. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE revenue has sought reference on the following three questions of law under section 256 (1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act):- (i) "whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to allowance of royalty payment of Rs. 12,16,694. 00 as revenue expenditure?" (ii) "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs being know-how fees and royalty of Rs. 1,03,068. 00 payable to the Jyoti Ltd. are allowed as revenue expenses?" (iii) "whether in law and on facts, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of Rs. 50,000. 00 as technical report fees?" ( 2 ) THE assessment year is 1981-82 and the relevant accounting period if financial year ended on 31st March, 1981. The assessee is a limited company. The assessee claimed deduction on the following items in its return of income:- (i) royalty payment of Rs. 12,16,694. 00 paid to Jyoti Ltd. under agreement dated 1st September, 1972 as revenue expenditure. (ii) Rs. 3 lacs know-how fees and Rs. 1,03,068. 00 being royalty paid to Jyoti Ltd. under another agreement dated 1st January, 1981 as revenue expenditure, and (iii) Rs. 50,000. 00 as technical report fees as revenue expenditure. ( 3 ) WE have heard Mr BB Naik, learned Standing Counsel for the revenue-applicant and Mr JP Shah learned advocate appearing on behalf of the assessee-respondent. ( 4 ) IN so far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is common ground between the parties that the said question is concluded in assessees favour by decision dated 3rd November, 1999 rendered by this Court in Income Tax Application No. 269 of 1999 between the same parties. ( 5 ) IN so far as third question is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 50,000/holding that the technical report fees were paid to Jyoti Consultants Ltd. for ascertaining feasibility of manufacturing motors of different kind than the motors which were already being manufactured by the assessee-company. ( 5 ) IN so far as third question is concerned, the Assessing Officer disallowed the sum of Rs. 50,000/holding that the technical report fees were paid to Jyoti Consultants Ltd. for ascertaining feasibility of manufacturing motors of different kind than the motors which were already being manufactured by the assessee-company. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that in principle the payment was allowable as revenue expenditure because the report had been obtained for the purpose of expansion of existing business, "that expansion had actually taken place and the cost of capital assets had been duly capitalised in the year under consideration as well as subsequent years". However, for the purposes of ascertaining whether the payment had actually been made or not during the relevant accounting period, the CIT (Appeals) directed the Income-tax Officer to examine the various documents and then grant relief to the assessee. ( 6 ) THE Tribunal has recorded in para-14 of its order that the Income-tax Officer examined the relevant papers and allowed relief to the assessee-company in pursuance of the directions issued by the Commissioner (Appeals ). In light of the aforestated facts, the Tribunal concurred with the finding recorded by the CIT (Appeals) that expansion had actually taken place and that the cost of capital assets has been capitalised during the relevant accounting period as well as in subsequent years. The Tribunal thus upheld the claim of the assessee that the assessee-company was entitled to deduction of Rs. 50,000/paid for technical report fees as revenue expenditure. ( 7 ) HAVING heard both the sides, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal as both the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have taken into consideration the facts on record and after appreciating the evidence, arrived at a finding of fact that the expenditure in question was incurred for the purpose of expansion of existing business. The third question is therefore required to be answered in favour of the assessee. ( 8 ) COMING to question No. 1, it was the submission of Mr Naik that the issue has been concluded against the assessee by decision rendered between the same parties reported in (1999) 237 ITR 280. As against this, Mr JP Shah relied upon the decisions of this Court again between the same parties rendered on the following dates and in following references. As against this, Mr JP Shah relied upon the decisions of this Court again between the same parties rendered on the following dates and in following references. ( 21 ) THE Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. .