JUDGMENT

B. P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.—These appeals are preferred by the Revenue against an order of the Bombay High Court rejecting an application under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. By means of the said application the Revenue sought to raise the following three questions :

"(i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the commission paid by the assessee-company to its directors was an additional remuneration forming part and parcel of the salary allowed to them and that the said remuneration would not be covered by Section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act and thereby allowing the assessees claim for allowing the deduction of the whole amount of commission paid to the directors?

(ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in their view that the words "whether convertible into money or not" used in Section 40(a)(v) of the Act postulated that the benefit, amenity or perquisite mentioned therein covers, benefit, amenity or perquisite allowed in kind but not in cash?

(iii) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 19,386 for the assessment year 1971-72 and Rs. 29,283 for the assessment year 1972-73 did not rep