JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by G. S. Kulkarni J.-By this income-tax reference under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"), Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal") has referred following questions of law for decision of this court: "(I) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in not granting depreciation on part of issue of shares capitalised to plant and machinery and factory equipment Rs. 29,668? (II) Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in law in not granting depreciation of Rs. 1,97,636 on cost of issue of shares capitalised to plant and machinery and factory equipment Rs. 29,668 and Rs. 9,79,438 towards capital work-in-progress?" Facts in brief are: assessment years in question are 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively. In assessment year 1980-81, assessee had issued 6,25,000 equity shares of Rs. 10 each. Accordingly, sum of Rs. 62.50 lakhs was adjusted by issue of shares and balance application money was refunded to subscribers. increase in share capital was for setting up unit for manufacture of computer and OEM peripheral manufacturing project. For issue of shares, assessee had incurred expenses of Rs. 14,21,276 under different heads like financial consultancy, managerial fees, legal fees, underwriting commission, advertisement, issue house expenses, printing charges, etc. Out of total expenditure of Rs. 14,21,276, assessee capitalised sum of Rs. 29,668 on plant and machinery and factory equipment and Rs. 9,79,438 on work-in- progress. balance sum of Rs. 4,12,170 was treated as preliminary expenses and on these expenses had claimed relief under section 35D of Act in following assessment year, i.e., 1981-82. On capitalised amount of Rs. 29,668, assessee claimed depreciation of Rs. 4,203 in said assessment year. applicant justified claim for depreciation on ground that these amounts which were capitalised, represented expenditure incurred in raising finance for acquisition of and/or for bringing into existence capital assets and thus formed part of cost of fixed assets. In support of its claim for depreciation under section 32 of Act, applicant principally relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC). Assessing Officer in assessment order dated March 1, 1984, held that expenditure of Rs. 14,21,276 was in nature of expenses listed under section 35D of Act and thus were required to be treated in accordance with section 35D of Act and not in manner as done by assessee in claiming depreciation under section 32 of Act and disallowed assessee's claim for depreciation on capitalised sum of Rs. 29,668 for amount of Rs. 4,203. Similarly, for assessment year 1981-82 by assessment order dated March 25, 1984, applying same yardstick Assessing Officer rejected claim of assessee for depreciation on sum of Rs. 9,79,438, amounting to Rs. 1,97,636. Thus, for assessment year 1980-81 and assessment year 1981-82 Assessing Officer disallowed assessee's claim for depreciation on capitalised amount of Rs. 4,176 and Rs. 1,97,636, respectively. assessee approached Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (for short "the CIT(A)") against order dated March 1, 1984, and March 25, 1984, passed by Assessing Officer disallowing its claim for depreciation for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82, respectively. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by common order dated January 31, 1985, rejected ground as raised in this behalf by assessee while holding that this claim of assessee seeking depreciation on basis of judgment of Supreme Court in case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) was misconceived as said decision of Supreme Court cannot be applied in facts of case. assessee being aggrieved by decision of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rejecting its claim for depreciation for both assessment years approached Tribunal. Tribunal by common order dated April 4, 1991, passed on two appeals of assessee for assessment year 1980- 81 and assessment year 1981-82 upheld order passed by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Tribunal observed thus: "7. third ground of appeal is that Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in not allowing depreciation on expenditure incurred on issue of shares which was capitalised. assessee had incurred total expenditure of Rs. 14,21,276 on issue of shares out of which Rs. 29,668 were capitalised to plant and machinery and factory equipment, amount of Rs. 4,12,170 related to preliminary expenses and balance amount was for work- inprogress. assessee claimed that this amount was incurred on raising finance by issue of shares for purchase of fixed assets and for working capital requirements. In support of same, assessee filed details of expenditure and copy of advertisement. assessee in this connection relied upon decision of Supreme Court in case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT and decision of Madras High Court in case of CIT v. Lucas-T. V. S. Ltd. (No. 1) [1977] 110 ITR 338 (Mad). Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) hold that decision in case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) must be stretched in manner so as to claim depreciation incurred on issue share capital. Departmental representative relied upon orders of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). 8. We have heard rival submissions. There is no doubt that Supreme Court held in case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT [1975] 98 ITR 167 (SC) that initial expenditure incurred including interest could be capitalised to extent it was incurred prior to commencement of production. Supreme Court held that since actual cost was not defined, it should be construed in sense which no commercial man would misunderstand and it would be necessary to ascertain connection of expression in accordance with normal rules of accountancy prevailing in commerce and industry. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had made reference to Bombay High Court decision in case of CIT v. Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 772 (Bom) wherein, it has held that all expenditure incurred directly or indirectly or intimately on capital assets acquired by assessee may be allowed to be included in actual cost. Similarly, in case of CIT v. Polychem Ltd. [1975] 98 ITR 574 (Bom), Bombay High Court held that printing and stationery expenses had no connection with acquisition and installation of machinery and could not be allowed. In this connection reference may also be made to provisions of section 35D which provides for amortisation of certain preliminary expenses which includes expenditure in connection with issue, for public subscription, of shares in debentures. Thus, there is independent provision for amortisation expenses in connection with share issue expenses. Under circumstances, we agree with Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that Assessing Officer was right in disallowing depreciation on amount capitalised. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed." assessee, thereafter, approached Tribunal for reference to be made to this court under section 256(1) of Act which Tribunal has referred above questions for our decision. We have heard learned counsel for assessee and learned counsel for Revenue. We have perused orders passed by Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal. short issue which arises for our consideration is, as to whether depreciation on part of expenditure on issue of shares which was capitalised by assessee can be said to be rightly disallowed by Assessing Officer as upheld by Tribunal. In facts of case question would be required to be decided taking into consideration provisions of sections 32 and 35D of Act as applied by Revenue. Section 32 provides for depreciation in respect of plant and machinery or furniture owned by assessee and used for purpose of business or profession. In present case, assessee is claiming depreciation on capitalised expenditure on issue of shares which ex facie cannot fall within purview of section 32. Section 35D of Act provides for amortisation of certain preliminary expenses incurred by assessee being Indian company incurred after March 31, 1970, in respect of expenditure specified in sub-section (2) before commencement of business or after commencement of business, in connection with extension of industrial undertaking or in connection with his setting up new industrial unit. It would be useful to extract section 35D of Act which reads thus: "35D. Amortisation of certain preliminary expenses.-(1) Where assessee, being Indian company or person (other than company) who is resident in India, incurs, after 31st day of March,1970, any expenditure specified in sub-section (2),- (i) before commencement of his business; or (ii) after commencement of his business, in connection with extension of his industrial undertaking or in connection with his setting up new industrial unit, assessee shall, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, be allowed deduction of amount equal to one- tenth of such expenditure for each of ten successive previous years beginning with previous year in which business commences or, as case may be, previous year in which extension of industrial undertaking is completed or new industrial unit commences production or operation. (2) expenditure referred to in sub-section (1) shall be expenditure specified in any one or more of following clauses, namely:- (a) expenditure in connection with- (i) preparation of feasibility report; (ii) preparation of project report; (iii) conducting market survey or any other survey necessary for business of assessee; (iv) engineering services relating to business of assessee: Provided that work in connection with preparation of feasibility report or project report or conducting of market survey or of any other survey or engineering services referred to in this clause is carried out by assessee himself or by concern which is for time being approved in this behalf by Board. (b) legal charges for drafting any agreement between assessee and any other person for any purpose relating to setting up or conduct of business of assessee; (c) where assessee is company, also expenditure- (i) by way of legal charges for drafting memorandum and articles of association of company; (ii) on printing of memorandum and articles of association; (iii) by way of fees for registering company under provisions of Companies Act, 1956 (1 of 1956); (iv) in connection with issue, for public subscription, of shares in or debentures of company, being underwriting commission, brokerage and charges for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of prospectus; (d) such other items of expenditure (not being expenditure eligible for any allowance or deduction under any other provision of this Act) as may be prescribed." (emphasis supplied) plain reading of above provision indicates that Legislature has thought it appropriate to give special benefit to assessee after March 31, 1970, in respect of preliminary expenditure incurred by assessee which may be company or person (other than company), in respect of expenditure specified in sub-section (2) incurred before commencement of business or after commencement of business, in connection with extension of industrial undertaking or in connection with setting up new industrial unit. Sub-section (2) of section 35D of Act sets out categories of expenditures relevant for purpose of section 35D. relevant clause for present reference is sub-clause (c) of sub-section (2) which concerns expenditure by company in connection with issue, for public subscription, of shares or debentures, underwriting commission, brokerage and charge for drafting, typing, printing and advertisement of prospectus. This provision, therefore, allows amortisation of specific category of expenditures incurred by assessee, by way of deduction of amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of ten successive previous years as provided therein. Legislature, therefore, having specifically provided for amortisation of preliminary expenditure which includes expenditure incurred for issuance of shares by assessee in connection with issue of shares, Assessing Officer had rejected claim of assessee for depreciation on capitalised expenditure on issue of shares for assessment years in question. It was held by Tribunal that claim of assessee for depreciation on such expenditure being capitalised could not be allowed taking into consideration provisions of section 32 of Act and taking into consideration specific provision for amortisation as provided by Legislature under section 35D. As regards contention of assessee as to application of decision of Supreme Court in case of Challapalli Sugars Ltd. v. CIT (supra), Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and Tribunal have correctly held that same was not applicable in facts of present case. In this decision Supreme Court was not dealing with issue in regard to expenditure incurred by assessee in issuing shares. As also provisions of section 35D of Act was not on statute book. In case before Supreme Court, interest was paid before commencement of production on amounts borrowed by assessee for acquisition and installation of plant and machinery. As expression "actual cost" was not defined in statute, Supreme Court held that it should be construed in sense term would be understood in common commercial parlance in accordance with normal rules of accountancy prevailing in commerce and industry. It was observed that accepted rule of accountancy for determining cost on fixed assets was to include all expenditure necessary to bring such assets into existence and put them in working condition. It was held that in case money is borrowed by newly started company which is in process of constructing and erecting its plant, interest incurred before commencement of production on such borrowed money can be capitalised and added to cost of fixed assets created as result of such expenditure. In case before Supreme Court, issue was payment of interest, before commencement of production, on amount borrowed by assessee for acquisition and installation of plant and machinery. In present case, assessee having issued shares and incurred expenses on issuance of shares which were sought to be capitalised by assessee cannot be said to be expenditure incurred for installation of plant and machinery so as to apply ratio of decision in Challapalli Sugars Ltd. (supra) to facts of present case. Moreover, as regards category of expenditure capitalised by assessee, provisions of section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of Act were held to be attracted. We do not find that reasoning as adopted by Tribunal in not applying ratio in Challapalli Sugars Ltd.'s case, is in any manner inappropriate. To bolster submission that Revenue had appropriately applied section 35D(2)(c)(iii) of Act in facts of case, learned counsel for Revenue has drawn our attention to decision of Division Bench of this court in case of CIT v. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd. [2001] 250 ITR 84 (Bom). In this case Division Bench was concerned about stamp duty paid on debentures issued whether was allowable as item of deduction under section 35D of Act. In deciding issue that such expenditure fell under section 35D(2)(c) of Act Division Bench has observed thus (page 85): "Two points arise for consideration in this appeal. Firstly, whether Tribunal was right in holding that stamp duty paid on debenture issue was allowable item of deduction under section 35D of Income-tax Act, 1961. Section 35D deals with amortisation of certain preliminary expenses. Under section 35D(1) where assessee, being Indian company, incurs, after March 31, 1970, expenditure specified in sub-section (2) of section 35D before commencement of his business, or after commencement of his business, in connection with extension of his industrial undertaking, assessee shall be allowed deduction of amount equal to one-tenth of such expenditure for each of ten successive previous years beginning with previous year in which business commences or, previous year in which extension of industrial undertaking is completed. Section 35D(2) enlists expenditure in respect of which deduction can be claimed by assessee. Section 35D(2)(c) stipulates that where assessee is company and it incurs expenditure in connection with issue, for public subscription of debentures of company, such expenditure shall be item of deduction contemplated by section 35D(1). It is contended on behalf of Department that payment of stamp duty on debenture issue is not item of allowable deduction. Tribunal has rejected contention. We agree with decision of Tribunal. expression in contention. We agree with decision of Tribunal. expression in connection with issue of public subscription of debentures of company essentially for expansion of business is very wide expression and it would certainly include stamp duty payable by assessee on debenture issue. Section 35D would apply only in respect of expenditure which is otherwise not allowable under law, for example, capital expenditure. Therefore, in this case, judgment of Supreme Court in case of India Cements Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 52, applies in respect of expenditure on account of stamp duty even after introduction of section 35D. Under circumstances, Tribunal was right in allowing said deduction." We are in complete agreement with view taken by Division Bench in above case. Applying same parameters as held by Division Bench, expenditure as incurred by assessee in present case can very well be said to fall within provisions of section 35D of Act. In decision of Rajasthan High Court in case of Autolite India Ltd. v. CIT [2003] 264 ITR 117 (Raj) following decision of Division Bench of this court in CIT v. Mahindra Ugine and Steel Co. Ltd. (supra), Rajasthan High Court held that claim of assessee in respect of expenditure incurred on public issue to raise capital for expansion of his business would fall under sub-clause (iv) of section 35D(2)(c) of Act and assessee would be entitled for benefit of provisions of section 35D of Act. similar view was taken by Madras High Court in case CIT v. Ashok Leyland Ltd. [2012] 349 ITR 663 (Mad) and by Madhya Pradesh High Court in case Shree Synthetics Ltd. v. CIT [2008] 303 ITR 451 (MP). We now deal with last limb of applicant's submissions, namely, that in deciding this reference we may decide broader issues than those referred to us by Tribunal. While making this submission, learned counsel for applicant does not dispute that question as framed has to be decided in favour of Revenue. Learned counsel for applicant relies on decision of Division Bench of this court in case Indoswe Engineers P. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [1996] 101 STC 177 (Bom) to contend that in exercising reference jurisdiction under section 256(1) of Income-tax Act, this court should not limit itself to questions which are referred by Tribunal or aspect which came to be decided by Tribunal but may consider diverse aspects which would otherwise fall under provision in question. In dealing with this proposition, Division Bench of this court held that legal position in this regard was no more res integra inasmuch as once broad question has been referred, High Court is not required to limit itself only to particular aspect on which decision was rendered by Tribunal. It was held that there is no limitation that reference should be limited to those aspects of questions which were argued before Tribunal or decided by Tribunal and that all aspects may be argued and considered where question involves more than one aspect. reference was made by Division Bench to decision of Supreme Court in case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (SC) and another decision of Supreme Court in case of Salem Co-operative Central Bank Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 697 (SC) in which Supreme Court held that it cannot be said that High Court is bound by terms of question referred and cannot correct erroneous assumption of law underlying question. In this case, it is not contended that there is error of law in framing question. We, however, find that issue as arising in present reference is not of that broad nature which would call for consideration diverse aspects falling under provisions. question referred by Tribunal in present reference is limited and specifies to aspect of decision of Tribunal in not allowing depreciation on part of expenditure incurred on issue of shares which was capitalised arising out of controversy before Tribunal. In view of this limited controversy, we do not feel that there is any need for us to consider any broader issues which do not specifically fall for our consideration. questions which are referred to us are specific in nature and cannot be artificially broadened so as to apply case law relied upon by applicant. We, therefore, reject this submission as made on behalf of applicant. In light of our above discussion, we answer questions Nos. 1 and 2 in affirmative and in favour of Revenue and against assessee. reference stands disposed of accordingly. *** International Computers Indian Manufacture Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax