JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by S. C. Dharmadhikari J.-This appeal of Revenue challenges order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, dated October 6, 1999. assessment years in this case are 1986-87 and 1987-88. This court, while admitting appeal, did not formulate any substantial question of law. law mandates such formulation and independent of what has been termed as substantial question by parties. This court has passed order recording that questions at pages 4, 5 and 6 are treated as substantial questions of law. Those questions are reproduced hereinbelow: "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in directing Assessing Officer to compute disallowance as per rule 3 in respect of ascertaining perquisite value on account of motor car? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in directing Assessing Officer not to exclude from profits and gains items of other income while working out deduction under section 80-I? 3. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that expenditure incurred by assessee is not in nature of advertisement and no disallowance under rule 6B can be made? 4. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) that premium of group insurance policy should not be considered as salary or perquisite for disallowance under section 40A(5)? 5. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing assessee's claim for production incentives? 6. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) of deleting addition made by Assessing Officer on account of ex gratia payments made to retiring employees? 7. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing Assessing Officer not to include depreciation on guest house while computing disallowance under section 37(4)? 8. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directing Assessing Officer to allow investment allowance under section 32A in respect of 10 items though same were not used directly for manufacturing activities? 9. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in law in confirming order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowing higher rate of investment allowance of 35 per cent. on machineries installed for purpose of manufacturing sulphuric acid?" matter is pretty old and has chequered history. Very few facts are required to be noted so as to dispose of this appeal. assessee before us is manufacturer of chemicals. return of income was filed showing income of Rs. 26,58,080. That was filed on 31st July, 1987. Assessing Officer sought revised computation and after requisite notices were issued proceeded to scrutinise return. He made several additions and disallowances. Being aggrieved, assessee approached Commissioner in appeal and Commissioner of Income-tax passed detailed order partly allowing appeal. That order of Commissioner delivered on August 8, 1991, came to be challenged by assessee as also Revenue before Tribunal. Tribunal's detailed order thus covered nine questions which we have reproduced above. We are not required to go into detailed facts simply because it is admitted that recording thereof in orders passed by authorities is accurate and correct. We could not have proceeded otherwise. paper books are not prepared in appeals and which have been filed as long as 14 years back. We are not aware whether Tribunal has in any manner preserved old records so as to enable preparation of paper books by Registry. In these circumstances we have not allowed parties to controvert factual conclusions reached in impugned orders. compilation tendered by Ms. Vasanti Patel, appearing for respondent, is taken on record. As far as first question and which we have reproduced above, it is fairly conceded by Mrs. Vasanti Patel, appearing on behalf of assessee, that there is judgment in field, namely, of CIT v. British Bank of Middle East [2001] 251 ITR 217 (SC). That is judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court and directly on point. Since that covers issue or question against assessee and in favour of Revenue, we hold accordingly. As far as second ground is concerned, what we have noted from Tribunal's order and equally from Commissioner's order is that same pertains to exclusion from profits and gains items of other income while working out deduction under 80-I of Income-tax Act, 1961. Mr. Pinto placed reliance upon judgment of hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Sterling Foods reported in [1999] 237 ITR 579 (SC). He would submit that Tribunal has failed to note that under section 80-I deduction is permissible only if profits and gains are derived from industrial undertaking. Therefore, it is required and in all such cases to establish as to how same are derived from industrial undertaking. In present case, Tribunal made no reference, save and except to items and details, namely, income from scrap sales. However, other items or details, namely, despatch money and excess provision for earlier years is not something derived from industrial undertaking and its profits or gains and that has not been elaborated in Tribunal's order. We are unable to agree with Mr. Pinto for more than one reason. In paragraph 10 of order of Tribunal there is reference to assessee's argument. details of amounts under head "details of miscellaneous income" are shown in profit and loss account placed in appeal paper book of Tribunal at page 6. From these details, Tribunal found that Assessing Officer has for purpose of working out deduction under section 80- I in next assessment year has granted benefit. assessee's advocate, therefore, may have argued on, what we find is ground No. 5 of assessee's appeal, for assessment year 198687 but that is with regard to Commissioner upholding action of Assessing Officer in not considering items "Other income" as part of profits for purpose of computing deduction under section 80-I of Income-tax Act. In circumstances, for relevant assessment year, namely, 1987-88 with which we are concerned, if benefit was granted by Tribunal relying on Assessing Officer's order but eventually what it has held is that though amounts are termed "miscellaneous income", "other income" are derived from two industrial units situated at Ambernath and Kumbari. same has nexus with industrial activity of assessee. In circumstances Assessing Officer was directed to consider these items under head "Other incomes" and not exclude them for purpose of deduction under section 80-I of Income-tax Act. Thus, we are concerned for year 1987-88 but ground in present memo of appeal is framed in such manner that it is difficult to ascertain whether Revenue is really aggrieved by what is done by Assessing Officer for year 1986-87 or that Assessing Officer will have to follow direction in paragraph 11 of order of Tribunal. We are of opinion, that once Assessing Officer has worked out details on basis of items disclosed in profit and loss account, then directions given to him and issued in terms of paragraph 11 of Tribunal's order do not raise any substantial question of law. As far as third question is concerned, we are of view that Tribunal has followed judgment of this court in case of CIT v. Allana Sons P. Ltd. reported in [1995] 216 ITR 690 (Bom). If that is how matter has been approached and equally Tribunal found that facts and circumstances in case of Allana Sons, are identical to assessee before us then even this question cannot be answered, otherwise but in favour of assessee. Relying on judgment, this is not substantial question of law at all because answer to it has been given by this court in judgment reported prior to impugned order. Hence, said question will have to be answered in favour of assessee. As far as disallowance and which has been made pertaining to premium to group insurance policy, Tribunal held that premium of group insurance should not be considered as salary or perquisites for disallowance under section 40A(5) of Income-tax Act is conclusion reached by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). However, this point or question has been repeatedly raised but stands covered against Revenue and in favour of assessee by orders of Tribunal itself. Tribunal has referred to one such order in paragraph 23 of paper book. If Tribunal has found that earlier decisions and orders rendered in case of very assessee are applicable on facts and deserved to be followed, then, even this question cannot be termed as substantial question of law. As far as assessee's claim for production incentives is concerned, once again Tribunal in paragraph 24 of its order refers to its own observations in case of this very assessee for assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. Tribunal held that once Revenue could not establish that nature of production of incentive payments for assessment year 1987-88 are different from earlier years, then, Tribunal's view for earlier assessment year on facts would bind Revenue. We do not know how such view can give rise to any substantial question of law. In any event, in two decisions to which our attention has been invited by counsel for assessee view taken by Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Kelvinator India Ltd. [1988] 171 ITR 256 (Delhi) and CIT v. Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. [1995] 79 Taxman 350 (Bom), has been subject matter of challenge before hon'ble Supreme Court. hon'ble Supreme Court has dismissed special leave petition against this order of Delhi High Court. In circumstances even this question will have to be answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue by relying on earlier orders of Tribunal itself. With regard to question No. 6, also we find that deletion of addition made on account of ex gratia payment to retiring employee, Tribunal has upheld Commissioner's view. In doing that Tribunal has referred, in impugned order at page 65 and paragraph 25 to its findings in its order and pertaining to same assessee for assessment year 1982-83. That would bind Revenue. There are series of orders but Tribunal for sake of reference points out its order for assessment year 1982-83. In circumstances, we are of view that there being no distinction on facts and Tribunal's consistent view being not questioned successfully because Departmental application for reference was rejected by Tribunal itself, then this question is also not substantial question of law. In any event, authoritative pronouncement by Division Bench of this court in decision brought to our notice, namely, CIT v. Maina Ore Transport (P.) Ltd. [2010] 324 ITR 100 (Bom) answers question in favour of assessee. On question No. 7 reproduced above, it is fairly conceded by Ms. Patel that decision of hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Britannia Industries Ltd. v. CIT [2005] 278 ITR 546 (SC) answers it against assessee and in favour of Revenue. As far as question No. 8 is concerned, once again it has been brought to our notice that in assessee's own case pertaining to disallowance, namely, investment allowance under section 32A, Tribunal has passed order in years 1979-80, 1980-81, 1982-83 and 1983-84. In first assessment year 1979-80, Department sought to make reference of question of law to this court but that application was rejected by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Thereafter, for assessment year 1981-82 Department application to seek reference of identical question was dismissed by Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. We find that for some years Department endeavoured to make application and sought reference of question of law to this court for its opinion. However, for some years it did not make such attempt. In circumstances, Tribunal was justified in concluding that view taken by it earlier and pertaining to this assessee continues to bind Revenue. In any event, there is judgment of this court in field and which has been brought to our notice, namely, Associated Bearing Co. Ltd. v. CIT [2006] 286 ITR 341 (Bom). That makes reference to all prior decisions of this court and equally there are two other judgments which have been referred by court and equally there are two other judgments which have been referred by Ms. Patel, namely, in case of CIT v. Electronics Research Industries Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 192 ITR 20 (Karn), it is judgment of High Court of Karnataka, and in case of CIT v. I.B.M. World Trade Corporation [1981] 130 ITR 739 (Bom). All these judgments have been compiled and handed over to us by Ms. Patel. Having perused them we do not find that findings of Tribunal can be termed as perverse or vitiated by error of law apparent on face of record. This question is answered in favour of assessee and against Revenue. As far as last question is concerned, we do not find how it is framed for it does not arise from any of Tribunal's findings or grounds. Tribunal had before it appeals from Revenue as also assessee. However, we do not find any reference being made to higher rate of investment allowance of 35 per cent. on machinery installed for purpose of manufacturing sulphuric acid. This question, therefore, could not have arisen and from paragraph 32 of Tribunal's order as well. We cannot conclude that such question can be termed as substantial question of law. From order passed by Commissioner, we could not discern that any such reference and particularly to product has been made. In circumstances, we do not think that question No. 9 can be termed as substantial question of law. As result of above discussion, this appeal succeeds in part. questions at serial No.1 and termed as substantial question of law and serial No. 7 stand answered in favour of Revenue and against assessee. All other questions stand answered in favour of assessee. There will be no order as to costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dharamsi Morarji Chemicals Co. Ltd