Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The Income-tax Tribunal has referred the following three questions for the opinion of this court: "1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in having disallowed the assessees claim of weighted deduction under Section 35B(1)(b)(viii) on the expenditure incurred by it on air, sea and railway freight, etc., by relying on the decision of the Special Bench in the case of J. Hem Chand Co., without independently applying its mind ? 2. Whether, in view of the provisions of sub-clause (vii) of Section 35B(1)(b), the Tribunal was right in law in having disallowed a sum of Rs. 5,000 as also the weighted deduction on it out of the expenses incurred by the partners for travelling outside India to promote the exports ? 3. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in having restricted the meaning of the word advertisement as appearing in Section 37(3) by holding that the souvenirs mentioning with best wishes from or with best compliments from the assessee did not contain advertisement by the assessee ?" 2. Mr. I. K. Mehta, learned counsel for the assessee, at whose instance the above questions have been referred for the opinion of this court does not press questions Nos. 1 and 2. Resultantly, these questions are answered against the assessee. 3. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, it has been alleged by counsel that the publications in the souvenir with the remarks--"with best wishes from" or "with best compliments from" the "assessee" amounted to an expense on advertisement and that the expense has been wrongly disallowed by the Tribunal. 4. Admittedly, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had found that the advertisements were given by the assessee for souvenirs and magazines. The supporting evidence to show the actual expenditure had been produced. The name of the appellant and the nature of the business was duly published in the souvenirs. Thus, the deduction of Rs. 14,402 as claimed by the assessee was allowed. The order passed by the assessing authority was reversed. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal took the view that "the allotment of pages are apparently to satisfy ego of certain persons who are interested in the assessee concern as partners or relation of partners. Thus, the deduction of Rs. 14,402 as claimed by the assessee was allowed. The order passed by the assessing authority was reversed. On appeal by the Revenue, the Tribunal took the view that "the allotment of pages are apparently to satisfy ego of certain persons who are interested in the assessee concern as partners or relation of partners. The expenditure, therefore, does not come under the definition of advertisement expenses and, therefore, cannot be allowed". 5. After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that the claim as made by the assessee was tenable. The expense was for advertisement of the assessee-firm. It was rightly allowed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal was wrong in taking the view that the allotment of pages was only to satisfy the ego of certain persons. No such material has been pointed out by learned counsel for the Revenue. 6. In view of the above, the third question is answered in favour of the assessee. In other respects, the order of the Tribunal is affirmed. No costs.