1. The following questions have been, at the instance of the revenue, referred to us by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench:

"(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law in holding that the expenditure on maintenance of bungalows owned by the assessee and depreciation thereon cannot be considered under S.40A(5) of the Income-tax Act?

(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that only a portion of the expenditure and depreciation on motor car can be considered properly includible for S.40A(5) and not the entire expenses?

(3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal's decision that there was no capital gains involved in the sale of rubber trees is legally and factually correct?

(4) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the subsidy received from the Rubber Board is income of the assessee?"

For the reasons stated by this Court in CIT. v. Forbes, Ewart and Figgis (P) Ltd., (1982) 138 ITR 1 (Ker.) (FB):1981 KLT 483 we answer question No. (1) in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and ag