RAJESH BINDAL, J. - (1.) FOLLOWING questions of law have been referred for opinion of this Court by the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh respect of the asst. yr. 1977 -78 : "1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in allowing the assessee's claim regarding interest due on sticky loans ?
(2.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) of IT Act, 1961, should be allowed @ 40 per cent of the total income before making deduction under s. 36(1)(viii) itself ?
(3.) WHETHER , on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 29,402 representing contribution made by the assessee corporation towards the Provident Fund Act, 1925 - 2. As far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, much facts are not required to be stated as learned counsel for the Revenue has fairly conceded that the issues are covered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee vide order petition filed by the Revenue seeking reference of the above referred two questions was dismissed finding the same to be covered against the Revenue by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs. CIT (1999) 154 CTR (SC) 88 : (1999) 237 ITR 889 (SC) and CIT vs. Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (1998) 233 ITR 195 (SC), respectively. 3. Accordingly, both these questions are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. As far as question No. 3 is concerned, from a perusal of the order of assessment, it is revealed that the assessee had contributed a sum of Rs. 29,402 under the Provident Fund Act, 1925 and claimed deduction in respect thereof. The same was negatived by the AO for the reason that it was not permissible being not a recognised provident fund even if the State of Punjab had included the assessee's name in annexure/schedule to the Provident Fund Act, 1925 and the contributions have been made, the same is in violation of s. 36(1) (iv) of the IT Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'). He further opined that as the deduction cannot be allowed under s. 36(1)(iv) of the Act, the same is also not admissible under s. 37 of the Act. In further appeal before the CIT(A), the assessee succeeded. The order of CIT(A) was upheld by the Tribunal. While doing so both the authorities below had relied upon the order passed by it in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation (supra). The status of that case is not readily available with the counsel for the Revenue. However, we have examined the case independently and are of the view that the opinion expressed by the Tribunal in the case is in conformity with law even though detailed discussion is not available on record.;