R.K. Agrawal, J. - (1.) The Tribunal, Allahabad has referred the following three questions of law under Section 256(1) of the IT Act, 196l (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), for opinion to this Court : 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in confirming the order of the learned CIT(A) that where WDV of the assets was not ascertainable, estimated value, i.e., 50 per cent of the sale price be substituted as WDV and the 50 per cent be treated as profits under Section 41(2) of the IT Act, 1961 ?
(2.) Whether, in law and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the learned CIT(A) allowing the assessee's claim of bonus in excess of 8.33 per cent amounting to Rs. 18,92,611 claimed on the basis of an agreement which took place on 16th June, 1980 which relates to the period relevant to the asst. yr. 1981-82, when the same was not quantified in the year under consideration and the provision for the same was also not made in the assessee's accounts for the relevant year ?
(3.) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal/was correct in law in holding that the retrenchment compensation of Rs. 580 paid to the worker of the electronic unit by the assessee, was allowable as business expenditure under Section 37(1) of the IT Act, 1961 and specifically when the electronic unit was in the process of being wound up ? 2. The reference relates to the asst. yr. 1980-81. 3. We have heard Sri Shambhu Chopra, learned standing counsel for the Revenue and Sri R.S. Agrawal, learned Counsel for the respondent-assessee.;