- (1.) THE following two questions have been referred in this case : "1. Whether, the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the medical expenses of the managing director could not be allowed under s. 37(1) and had to be considered subject only to the limit under s. 40A(5)/40(c)(i) of the IT Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the deduction allowable under s. 80HHA with regard to the income derived from industrial undertaking after setting off such income against loss from non -industrial unit in term of s. 80AB and s. 71 of the IT Act, 1961 -
(2.) SO far as the second question is concerned, it has been noted in the statement of case itself that for the earlier asst. yr. 1982 -83, the same issue was decided in favour of the Department and against the assessee relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. vs. CIT 1978 CTR (SC) 50 : (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC) and in the case of Distributors (Baroda) (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India (1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC). No reason has been mentioned by the Tribunal in the statement of the case, as to why despite the above, the question was referred to the High Court.
(3.) WHEN a question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court, there is no reason for referring the same to the High Court under s. 256(1). Further, even during the arguments we have not been shown any good reason on the basis of which the decision of the Supreme Court could be distinguished in respect of the asst. yr. 1986 -87, which is involved in the present case. We, therefore, answer question No. 2 in terms of the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in favour of the Department and against the assessee.;