9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (6) TMI 38X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hence these two appeals by the Department. 3. The fourth ground raised before us is that the AAC has failed to specify the particular sub-section of s. 35(1)(b) under which such items are admissible for weighted deduction. It is true that no particular sub-section has been referred to in the appellate order (Even in the assessment order it is not so indicated under what sub-section it was claimed and refused). But a reading of the appellant order where the AAC uses the words 'like obtaining information and submission of renders for the supply of goods' clearly establishes that the claim was allowed under s. 35B(i)(b)(ii) or 35B(i)(b)(v) or both. 4. The submission before us by the departmental representative is that the assessee procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bar only when the case falls under s. 35B(i)(b)(iii) of the Act. If the facts of the case fall under 35B(1)(b)(ii) or 35B(1)(b)(v), payment in India is not a bar. As regards the question whether it fell under 35B(1)(b)(ii) or 35B(i)(b)(v), we have, as indicated above, rejected the submission that the assessee had put forward only 35B(i)(b)(iii) before the ITO. We would have perhaps though that the finding of the AAC under s. 35B(i)(b)(ii) or 35B(i)(b)(v) is without much basis but for certain other salient features of the case. That these two persons were doing correspondence work is seen admitted in the third ground of appeal before us. Further, in the assessment order for 1973-74, passed only two days after the assessment order for 1972-7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts about the work done by the two persons in obtaining information regarding markets outside India and preparation and submission of tenders has been placed before the ITO. Other wise the ITO would not have come to the conclusion that these persons are assisting the assessee in getting the orders from foreign countries. The departmental representative did not explain to us any other mode of assistance rendered by the two persons to the assessee and on which the ITO came to the conclusion that the persons are assisting the assessee so that we can come to a conclusion that the finding of the ITO that these place are assisting the assessee was based on some other method of work not falling under s. 35B(1)(b)(ii) or 35B(1)(b)(v). We agree with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
