Honble BALIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). This appeal relates to the Assessment Year 1985-86. The order under appeal is a composite order passed on 27.6.2001 in nine appeals by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, in respect of the Assessment Year 1985-86. (3). According to Revenue-appellant, following two substantial questions of law arises in this appeal :- (01) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in holding that the salary amounting to Rs. 29,80,610/- will not fall within the ambit of Section 37 (3A) read with Section 37 (3B) even though the same was not paid to the employees of the assessee, overlooking the provisions of clause (b) of explanation appended to Section 37 (3B) of the Income-Tax Act ? (02) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in Law in holding that interest once granted U/s. 244(1A) cannot be withdrawn subsequently ? (4). So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the decision of the Tribunal is based on a judgment of Gujrat High Court in Cibatul Ltd. vs. IAC (1). The appeal against which has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court. Reference in this connection may be made to 203 ITR (ST) 23 (S.C.). (5). That case relates to the question whether the Assessing Officer is empowered to withdraw interest granted under Section 244(1A) of the Act. That question has been answered against the Revenue. Since the decision of Gujrat High Court in favour of the assessee has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court, which amounts to declaration of law setting any controversy about the issue, it cannot be said that the question No. 2 any more remain a substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal. It stands answered by aforesaid decision of Honble Supreme Court. (6). So far as the first question is concerned, in our opinion on the accepted premises by the parties, it is also misconceived. (7). As per the learned counsel for the appellant Rs. It stands answered by aforesaid decision of Honble Supreme Court. (6). So far as the first question is concerned, in our opinion on the accepted premises by the parties, it is also misconceived. (7). As per the learned counsel for the appellant Rs. 29,80,610/- , which has been shown as salaries forming part of the `marketing expenditure incurred by M/s. Mc Dowell Limited and debited to the assessees account as his share of marketing expenditure, which has been transacting Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) manufactured by Mc Dowells is not allowable, on a conjoint reading of sub-section 3A and 3B of Section 37 of the Act. (8). The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that part of this amount represents the amount spent on salaries of Mc Dowells employees. However, salary has been paid actually by Mc Dowells to its employees and this amount has not been incurred by the assessee as salary payable to its own employees. Therefore, in view of specific provision contained in clause (b) of the explanation appended to sub-section 3A and sub- section 3B of Section 37 of the Act, the assessee is not entitled to claim such deduction on account of salary to the employees who are engaged with Mc Dowells. (9). On the other hand it was urged by learned counsel for the respondents that the amount of expenses debited to profit and loss account of the assessee as its share of marketing are not of any category inhibited by sub-section 3A and 3B of Section 37 of the Act is a fact which has been accepted by the Revenue and which is not disputed. The assessees share in expenses relating to category mention in Section 37 (3B) have also been separately dealt with by the Revenue. That being so, every part of expenses relating to general marketing infra-structure and not any part of expenses envisaged under Section 37 (3B) are allowed in full, unless it could be said that the same are not actually incurred. In no circumstances any part of expenses forming part of market expenditure in question cannot be disallowed or reduced by invoking sub-sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 37 of the Act. It was also urged that, what the assessee has incurred by way of marketing expenditure is one consolidated sum debited to Mc Dowells Company. In no circumstances any part of expenses forming part of market expenditure in question cannot be disallowed or reduced by invoking sub-sections (3A) and (3B) of Section 37 of the Act. It was also urged that, what the assessee has incurred by way of marketing expenditure is one consolidated sum debited to Mc Dowells Company. It has not incurred expenses on separate heads e.g. since no part of expenses in question were spent by way of payment of salaries by the assessee to its employees. The details furnished by Mc Dowells is only to justify and verify the amount of share demanded from assessee as his share of total marketing expenditure. (10). To understand the scheme and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the provisions of sub-section 3A and sub-section 3B of Section 37 which were introduced in the statute book by the Finance Act, 1983 w.e.f. 1.4.1984 and were omitted by the Finance Act, 1985 w.e.f. 1.4.1986. The two provisions remained in force for the assessment year 1984-85 and 1985-86. We are concerned in this appeal with the assessment year 1985-86. (11). The provision as stood in Statute Book at relevant time reads as under :- Section 37 (3A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1), where the expenditure or, as the case may be, the aggregate expenditure incurred by an assessee on any one or more of the items specified in sub-section (3B) exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, twenty per cent of such excess shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head ``Profits and gains of business or profession. Original sub-section was inserted by the Finance Act, 1978, w.e.f. 1-4-1979 and was later omitted by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1980 w.e.f. 1-4-1981. ``Section 37 (3B) The expenditure, referred to in sub- section (3A) is that incurred on - (i) advertisement, publicity and sales promotion; or (ii) running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars; or (iii) payments made to hotels. ``Section 37 (3B) The expenditure, referred to in sub- section (3A) is that incurred on - (i) advertisement, publicity and sales promotion; or (ii) running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars; or (iii) payments made to hotels. Explanation - For the purpose of sub-section (3A) and (3B),- (a) the expenditure specified in clause (i) to clause (iii) of sub-section (3B) shall be the aggregate amount of expenditure incurred by the assessee as reduced by so much of such expenditure as it is not allowed under any other provision of this Act; (b) expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion shall not include remuneration paid to employees of the assessee engaged in one or more of the said activities; (c) expenditure on running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars shall include - (i) expenditure incurred on chartering any aircraft and expenditure on hire charges for engaging cars plied for hire; (ii) conveyance allowance paid to employees and, where the assessee is a company, conveyance allowance paid to its directions also. (12). Sub-section 3A permits only partial deduction in respect of certain expenses which have been detailed in sub-section 3B. (13). Sub-section 3B details the expenses which are to be dealt with under sub-section 3A. Clause (i) of Section 37 (3B) refers to expenditure incurred on (i)- advertisement, (ii)- publicity and (iii)- sales promotion. The other expenses dealt with under Section 3B are running and maintenance of aircraft under Clause (ii) and payment made to hotels under Clause (iii) with which we are not concerned. (14). Clause (b) of Explanation excludes from expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and any remuneration paid to employees of the assessee engaged in one or more of the said activities. In other words even in case of computing expenditure incurred on advertisement, publicity or sales promotion, which may be subjected to restricted deduction under Section 37 (3A), the amount of salaries paid to employees in these activities, as salaries, is not to be included. To say otherwise, while considering the allowable expenditure under Section 37, the restriction envisaged under Section 37(3A) read with (3B) is not extended to amount of salaries paid to persons employed in the activities relating to advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. To say otherwise, while considering the allowable expenditure under Section 37, the restriction envisaged under Section 37(3A) read with (3B) is not extended to amount of salaries paid to persons employed in the activities relating to advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. Such expenditure on account of salaries paid to employees engaged in the said activities is to be considered as uninhibited allowable business expenditure, as any other expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business, not otherwise specifically dealt with under the Act. (15). The core of the issue in this appeal is whether the amount of salary which is the contentions issue between the parties is allowable expenditure in its entirety or to be governed by sub- section 3A read with sub-section 3B of Section 37 of the Act. (16). First of all, the salary must be paid to the employees of the assessee engaged in advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. That is to say this question would arise only when the salaries are forming part of expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. Salary paid to the employees not engaged in any of these activities are not governed by sub- section 3A or sub-section 3B of Section 37. (17). The question which immediately calls for attention is whether the amount sought to be disallowed by the Revenue as expenditure while assessing the total expenditure in question can be treated in the first instance as salary paid to employees of the assessee engaged in one or more of the said activities ? (18). In the facts and circumstances of the case as found by the Assessing Authority as well as by the Tribunal that under the terms of agreement between the assessee and Mc Dowells, the manufacturer of IMFL, certain expenses for running the business of manufacture and sale of Indian made foreign liquor were to be shared by manufacturing company as well as by the selling agencies. Under the terms of said agreement Mc Dowells, has issued during the previous assessment year 1985-86, two debit notes, one amounting to Rs. 44,52,200/- being the assessees proportionate share of expenditure on advertisement and sales promotion and another debit memo was issued for Rs. 61,85,000/- being the assessees proportionate share of marketing overheads. The division of expenses incurred by Mc Dowells and shared by the assessee proportionately under these two heads separately is not in dispute. 44,52,200/- being the assessees proportionate share of expenditure on advertisement and sales promotion and another debit memo was issued for Rs. 61,85,000/- being the assessees proportionate share of marketing overheads. The division of expenses incurred by Mc Dowells and shared by the assessee proportionately under these two heads separately is not in dispute. This is also not dispute in between the parties that marketing expenses is not governed by the expression `Expenses Incurred on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion activities. (19). In fact, the marketing expenses excludes the salary component which has been allowed fully as deduction by the Assessing Authority. Rs. 29,80,610/- have been disallowed on the ground that the same are not paid to the employees of the assessee and, therefore, they cannot be excluded from the purview of Section 37 3(A) and (3B) because of Clause (b) of Explanation appended thereto. (20). In our opinion the contention on the face of it is fallacious. Once the marketing expenditures are excluded from the purview of expenses on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion and such expenses do not fall in any other categories of expenditure detailed in sub-section (3B) of Section 37, the question of invoking any part of Section 37 (3A) read with (3B) cannot arise. The Explanation relates to expenditure falling within the purview of expenses mentioned in clause (i) to (iii) of Section 3B. When the principal amount of expenses does not come within the ambit of sub-section 3B of Section 37 of the Act, the invocation or exclusion of Clause (b) of Explanation is also ruled out. Therefore, in our opinion it is obvious that on account of marketing overhead or salary component of marketing expenditure is not an expenditure governed by sub-section 3A and sub-section 3B of Section 37. Such expenses cannot be disallowed by referring to inapplicability of Explanation (b) on the ground that the employees to whom salaries have been paid were not the employees of the assessee. (21). Apparently, the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT appeals have overlooked the basic premises that called for consideration is that assessee is sharing in lumpsum proportionate expenses incurred by Mc Dowells on total marketing infrastructure for sale of products of Mc Dowells. Such expenditure includes expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. The assessee is to pay a lumpsum amount as his proportionate share in the expenses. Such expenditure includes expenditure on advertisement, publicity and sales promotion. The assessee is to pay a lumpsum amount as his proportionate share in the expenses. It is a matter of accounting details between the parties to satisfy the mutual trust about accuracy of proportionate share of expenditure claimed by Mc Dowels from the assessee, and assessee accepting that liability by debiting that sum in his books of account. (22). So far as the assessee is concerned, it is not relevant for him to question as to what different component forms part of marketing expenditure as expenditure to be shared by him. It is under the terms of agreement, he has shared proportionate share of total expenditure incurred by Mc Dowells on various overheads. All expenses are primarily incurred on different counts by M/s. Mc. Dowells. The assessee shares only the proportionate total expenditure determined as per the total amount spent by the Mc Dowells. Therefore, from any angle, the finding of the Tribunal that the expenses do not form part of any of the activities included in sub-section 3B and, therefore, it is not subject to Clause (b) to Explanation is un-exceptionable. (23). Once the proportionate marketing expenses shared by assessee have been accepted as allowable expenses and the same being not part of the expenses related to advertisement, publicity and sales promotion, there was no warrant to enquire about exclusion or non-exclusion of the part of it with reference to the salary not paid by it but incurred by Mc Dowell as a part of its overhead expenses with reference to Section 37 (3A) and (3B). (24). It is not the finding of the Tribunal nor it is the contention of the Revenue that Rs. 29,80,610/- were not the part of expenditure incurred by Mc Dowells on marketing overheads. In the absence of such finding, issue between the parties on finding reached by and accepted by the Revenue, the question of disallowance of salary on the ground which weighed with Assessing Authority really did not arise for consideration at all. (25). It remains a finding of fact that the entire amount shared by the assessee as marketing overheads for running its business was one single indivisible expenses incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business, hence allowable under Section 37 of the Act. (26). Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed, there will be no order as to costs.