1. Two questions have been suggested on behalf of the Commissioner. Question No. 2 cannot be directed to be referred for the reasons we have mentioned in our order of even date in I. T. C. No. 89 of 1986 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (No. 2) : [1988]173ITR89(Delhi) ). Again, for the reasons stated in the same order, we direct the Tribunal to refer the first question to us for our decision but in the following modified form :
'Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the payment to the field organisers was a payment in respect of services rendered and constituted a genuine business expenditure eligible for deduction ?'
2. The Tribunal is directed to refer the above question for the decision of this court. The application is disposed of. No order as to costs.
3. We have disposed of by separate orders today also I. T. C. No. 89 of 1986 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement (Bharat) Ltd. (No 2) : [1988]173ITR89(Delhi) ), I. T. C. No. 101 of 1985 as well as ITC No. 143 of 1986 (CIT v. Dalmia Cement Ltd. (No 3) : [1988]173ITR91(Delhi) ). Since the questions referred in these cases are to some extent common, the Tribunal will be at liberty to make a consolidated statement for all the assessment years if it is more convenient.