Export commission paid to overseas agents for export orders held not "maintained agency" spending u/s 35B; deduction denied.

Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) requires that the assessee incur expenditure on the maintenance outside India of its own branch, office, or agency for promoting sales outside India. Commission paid to overseas agents merely for procuring export orders did not satisfy this test because the assessee neither maintained any such foreign agency nor incurred expenditure toward general promotion of overseas sales; the payments were linked to specific sales and thus were not promotional maintenance expenditure. Even if "agency" could include an agency not established by the assessee, it must still be maintained by the assessee, which was not shown. Weighted deduction was therefore denied and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues:
Interpretation of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the payment of commission to an agent abroad for maintaining an agency for sales promotion outside India.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether payment of commission to an agent abroad constitutes maintenance of an agency within the meaning of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee had exported agarbathis and paid commission to agents outside India for procuring orders, seeking weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iv). The assessing authority disallowed the deduction, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed it. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Commissioner was not justified in allowing the deduction, leading to the matter being referred to the High Court. The High Court, following its earlier decision, ruled in favor of the Revenue, prompting the assessee to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The interpretation of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) was crucial in determining whether the commission paid to agents outside India qualified as expenditure on the maintenance of an agency for sales promotion outside India. The High Court emphasized that for an agency to be considered maintained by the assessee, there must be evidence of establishment and maintenance by the assessee, which was lacking in this case. The Karnataka High Court's view was that the word "agency" should be interpreted in conjunction with "branch" and "office," requiring the agency to be maintained by the assessee for specific purposes outlined in the provision.

Contrasting views emerged from different High Courts, with the Calcutta High Court and Gauhati High Court diverging from the Karnataka High Court's interpretation. The Calcutta High Court held that having an agent abroad satisfied the requirement of maintaining an agency, emphasizing the independence of the agent in such arrangements. The Gujarat High Court also supported a broader interpretation, linking agency to legal relations between parties. However, the Kerala High Court aligned with the Calcutta High Court without detailed discussion due to previous practice.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the Karnataka High Court's interpretation, emphasizing the necessity for the assessee to maintain the agency outside India for sales promotion purposes. It clarified that commission payments for specific sales did not qualify as expenditure for general sales promotion as required by the provision. Even if the agency was established by a third party, the maintenance responsibility fell on the assessee. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed in favor of the Revenue, endorsing the Karnataka High Court's judgment on the matter.

---