JUDGMENT
Bharucha, J.
1. Three questions are raised in this reference at the instance of the Revenue. The first relates to the asst. yrs. 1962-63 to 1969-70 and reads us :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the assessee was entitled to depreciation claimed in respect of interest capitalised during the previous year relevant to the asst. yr. 1958-59 ?”
The second question relates to asst. yrs. 1964-65 to 1969-70 and read thus :
“Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to depreciation with reference to the amount of interest and commitment charges paid during the period prior to the functioning of the new thermal plant, which amounts were capitalised by the assessee ?”
The third question relates to asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68 and reads thus :
“Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sums of Rs. 9,150 and Rs. 2,024 paid for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1967-68 respectively account of the fluctuations in the rates of exchange in repayment of the loan from International Bank for Reconstruction and Development are expenses of revenue nature ?”
2. Counsel are agreed that the judgment of this court in the assessee’s own case reported in CIT v. Tata Hydro Electric Power Supply Co. Ltd. (1979) 118 ITR 716 (Bom) governs the answer to be given to the first two questions. Following that judgment the first two questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
3. The third question, we find, is covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT, West Bengal . Following that judgment the third question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.
4. No order as to costs.