9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (2) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the Division Bench disposed of Income-tax Reference No. 10 of 1987 which pertains to the assessment year 1974-75 on July 30, 1998, which is under challenge in Civil Appeal No. 3788 of 1999. The common substantial question of law, which arises in these appeals, is question No. 2 noted below. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows : The respondent assessee is an Indian resident company. It is carrying on the business of exporting tea. In the aforementioned assessment years it claimed weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act (for short "the Act"), in respect of the expenditure of Rs. 1,95,935 incurred on export of tea from East Africa to the United Kingdom. The claim was disallowed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the second question, the High Court answered it in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. It will be apt to refer to section 35B of the Act, which is the subject-matter of debate in all the five appeals. "35B. Export markets development allowance.--- (1)(a) Where an asses- see, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred after the 29th day of February, 1968, but before the 1st day of March, 1983, whether directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee) referred to in clause (b), he shall subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed a ded ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t should be ex-India is not supported by the language of the provision or any authority. The High Court has, therefore, rightly concluded that to avail of the benefit of weighted deduction the provision does not require that the export should be ex-India. It must be observed in fairness to Mr. M. L. Verma, learned senior counsel appearing for the Revenue, that he does not seriously dispute this proposition. Once this position is accepted, the order under challenge has to be sustained. However, what Mr. Verma contends is that the respondent claims the expenditure under sub-clause (viii) for which there is no factual finding, by the Tribunal. The High Court, submits Mr. Verma, has gone wrong in recording a fresh finding---"the expenditure w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
