( 1 ) TWO questions have been referred in this case. The first question is mentioned in Para 2. 2 of the statement of the case and reads as follows : "whether the Tribunal, in the circumstances and facts of the case was legally justified in allowing the depreciation @ 20% instead of 10% on Generator?". ( 2 ) THE second question is found at the end of the paragraph No. 3 of the statement of the case and reads as follows : "whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in accepting assessees claim for weighted deduction u/s 35-B read with Rule 6-AA (c) in respect of 30% of the salaries and 25% of packing expenses towards quality control ?" ( 3 ) SO far as the first question is concerned, the issues stands covered by the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Janta Sugar Industries Vs. C. I. T reported in 2005 UPTC 676, in which it has been held that the depreciation of 10% is allowable on the generator instead of 20%. ( 4 ) WE see no good reason to take a different view. The first question is answered accordingly. So far as the second question is concerned, the relevant facts are that two accounting years of the assessee are involved ending 30. 6. 1981 and 30. 6. 1982. It appears from the judgment of the Tribunal dated 26. 10. 1988 (Paragraph No. 6) that the issue about allowability of the assessees claim was limited to the second year only i. e. to the year ending 30. 6. 1982. The activity for which weighted deduction was claimed under Section 35 B is covered by Rule 6-AA (c ). However, this rule was introduced w. e. f. 1. 8. 1981 i. e. midway between the accounting year in question, the period of which is as stated above is from 1. 7. 1981 to 30. 6. 1982. The contention of the revenue is that, since the insertion of rule 6-AA (c) took place during the course of the relevant accounting year, therefore, the weighted deduction under clause (c) of the said rule 6-AA could not be allowed for that year, and that it could be allowed only for the next accounting year. 1981 to 30. 6. 1982. The contention of the revenue is that, since the insertion of rule 6-AA (c) took place during the course of the relevant accounting year, therefore, the weighted deduction under clause (c) of the said rule 6-AA could not be allowed for that year, and that it could be allowed only for the next accounting year. The rule 6-AA lists the prescribed "activities" for export market development allowance permissible under Section 35 B. Section 35 B pre-existed and upto 1. 8. 1981 i. e. till Rule 6-AA was introduced, apparently, there were no such "activities" prescribed (by the Rules ). The department was till then therefore granting weighted deductions in respect of activities of the nature laid down in the Special Bench decision in the case of J. Hemchand and Co. Subsequently, Section 35 B underwent a change and rule 6-AA was inserted. ( 5 ) IT has not been shown to us that the activity for which weighted deduction has been claimed by the assessee and has been granted by Tribunal, was not an activity covered by the Special Bench decision referred above. ( 6 ) WE therefore, answer the second question, which has been referred by holding that the Tribunal was justified in accepting the assessees claim for the weighted deduction. Reference answered accordingly. .