ORAL JUDGMENT : Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. The questions which arise for adjudication in these matters as formulated are common. It is not in dispute that the contribution by the assessee as the employer and the provisions made to honour the commitment in terms of the National Coal Wage Agreement [NCWA] has been already accepted by this Court and the challenge of Revenue thereto is rejected. We find that after expiry of the earlier NCWA when the negotiations were going on, the assessee made the provision for increments on estimate basis. It was certain that as per the NCWA under negotiations, the wage rise was inevitable. Hence, in corresponding previous year, the provision has been made for the incremental arrears. Thus, the liability was certain and to crystallize after the NCWA was finalized. 2. In this situation, we find that the provision was made for known liability and therefore the approach by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur [ITAT] cannot be said to be unjust. Hence, no substantial question arises on that count. 3. Insofar as the overloading charges are concerned, after hearing learned Advocate Shri Parchure for the Revenue and learned Advocate Shri Dewani for the assessee, we find that the percentage of overloading charges paid by the assessee to the railways as compared to the normal loading charges is minuscule. The overloading charges do not appear to have been paid deliberately. Learned Advocate Shri Dewani attempted to explain that on account of mechanical process of loading coal into railway wagons, some times the extra coal is overloaded. He submits that all these are the contingencies in the course of business and no malice can be contributed to anybody. He states that the ITAT in paragraph 7 of its order correctly appreciated the controversy. 4. We have perused the said paragraph. In that paragraph the ITAT has relied upon its earlier judgment in paragraph nos. 25 and 26. It is not in dispute that those judgments are today impugned before us in connected matters. The overloading charges or under loading charges are payable in terms of contract between the parties and it is not an offence. It is purely a commercial transaction. 25 and 26. It is not in dispute that those judgments are today impugned before us in connected matters. The overloading charges or under loading charges are payable in terms of contract between the parties and it is not an offence. It is purely a commercial transaction. In this situation, we do not find any substantial question of law arising as the ITAT has allowed payment of overloading charges as expenditure which can be deducted under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. The last question raised is about the compensation expenditure. The learned Counsel for the Revenue contends that the said expenditure is capital in nature because it is incurred for procuring a capital asset. The assessee has submitted that it is sum paid over and above the market price which is offered to avoid litigation and also to avoid displacement of affected person. Shri Dewani attempted to demonstrate the fact that as per the policy of resettlement and rehabilitation for land outstees, they are to be given employment in the assessee company and till such employment is given, the assessee company is liable to pay subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/-. 6. We have considered this fact and the finding of the ITAT in paragraph no.16 of its judgment. Since the acquisition of land results into displacement of land owners, as per the policy of resettlement and rehabilitation for land outstees, they are to be given employment in the assessee company and till such employment is given the assessee company is liable to pay subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per month per person. It has no corelation with area or extent of land acquired. The company, as a prudent measure, has evolved the policy to pay a lump sum consideration to such land oustees in lieu of employment. If the company is not in a position to provide employment, then only the subsistence allowance at the rate of Rs. 2,500/was/ is being paid. Thus, this subsistence allowance is a liability which arises only after the land is acquired if employment cannot be offered. Therefore, the ITAT has rightly accepted it as the Revenue expenditure. No substantial question also arises on that count. 7. In view of this discussion, we find no substantial question of law arising in the matter. The appeals are dismissed. No costs.