1992 (1) TMI 76 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
Claim for export markets development allowance under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for interest paid on packing credit loans.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Gujarat involved a partnership-firm engaged in the manufacture and export of Isabgol and import/export of edible oil. The firm had claimed export markets development allowance under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for certain expenditures, including interest paid to the bank on packing credit loans. The controversy centered around whether the interest paid on packing credit loans qualified for weighted deduction under section 35B. The firm had maintained an export packing credit loan account with the bank, using advances from this account to purchase raw materials for goods intended for export. The firm contended that the interest paid on these advances was incurred in connection with its export business, thus eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b) of the Act.

The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the firm's claim, leading to an appeal. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, citing a decision of the Bombay Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, allowed the claim. Subsequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The primary question referred to the High Court was whether the firm was entitled to a deduction under section 35B for the interest paid to the bank on packing credit loans. The court analyzed the expenditure in question and concluded that it did not fall under sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of section 35B(1), as it was expenditure incurred in India for the supply of goods outside India, which is specifically excluded under the Act.

The court highlighted that the expenditure did not qualify under any other sub-clause of section 35B(1)(b) and, therefore, the firm was not entitled to claim weighted deduction for the interest paid on packing credit loans. The court found that the Tribunal erred in confirming the view of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Additionally, the court noted that the Tribunal had not provided detailed information regarding the interest paid on packing credit loans, assuming it was related to loans taken for purchasing raw materials for export goods. Consequently, the court answered the question in the negative, ruling against the firm and concluding the reference with no order as to costs.