High Court rules against Revenue on interest disallowance, transportation expenses not eligible for deduction

The High Court ruled against the Revenue in a case involving disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, finding the disallowance unjustified based on previous decisions. Additionally, the court held that transportation and freight expenses were not eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B, following a previous decision. The court did not address the foreign traveling expenses issue as the Tribunal had already allowed a deduction. The judgment was delivered by Judge R. K. Vijayvargiya, referencing sections 36(1)(iii) and 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961.

---

---

Issues involved:
1. Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
2. Entitlement to weighted deduction under section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961.

Issue 1: Disallowance of interest under section 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961
The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing, had interest disallowed by the ITO on borrowed capital for advancing without charging interest. The Tribunal referred the matter, and the High Court, based on previous decisions, held that the disallowance was not justified under section 36(1)(iii) of the Act. The court found no new material to warrant a different decision, thus ruling against the Revenue.

Issue 2: Entitlement to weighted deduction under section 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961
The assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35B for transportation, freight expenses, and foreign traveling expenses related to export sales. The ITO disallowed part of the deduction, which was upheld by higher authorities. The Tribunal referred the matter to the High Court. Regarding transportation and freight expenses, the court held that the deduction was not covered by section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Act, based on a previous decision. As for foreign traveling expenses, since the Tribunal had already allowed a deduction, the court did not address this part of the question. The court answered question No. 2 accordingly.

The judgment was delivered by Judge R. K. Vijayvargiya, with reference to sections 36(1)(iii) and 35B of the I.T. Act, 1961. The court upheld previous decisions and provided a detailed analysis of the legal provisions to arrive at its conclusions.

---