1984 (3) TMI 140 - AT - Income Tax

ITAT ruling: Claim for weighted deductions partly allowed

Malhotra International Ltd. Versus Income-Tax Officer

The Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-E, in a case concerning a claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, partially ... Export Market Development Allowance Issues:1. Claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.2. Rejection of claim for weighted deduction on service charges for export and expenditure on carriage of goods abroad.3. Interpretation of Special Bench decisions in similar cases.4. Applicability of previous court judgments on the current case.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT CALCUTTA-E, delivered by Member H. S. Ahluwalia, addressed the dispute concerning the assessee's claim for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal noted that while a sum of Rs. 4,06,071 was deemed eligible for weighted deduction, the claim for weighted deduction on service charges for export at Rs. 73,758 and the expenditure on carriage of goods abroad at Rs. 3,03,146 were rejected. This rejection was based on a previous decision by the Special Bench of the Tribunal in a different case. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading the assessee to appeal to the Tribunal.Upon hearing arguments from both parties, the Tribunal observed that the authorities had incorrectly relied on the wrong Special Bench decision in rejecting the claim. The correct decision relevant to the current case was identified as the Special Bench decision in the case of J.H. & Co. v. Second ITO [1982] 1 SOT 150. Regarding the first amount of Rs. 73,758 claimed as commission for procuring foreign orders, the Tribunal found in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal highlighted that the place of expenditure was irrelevant for weighted deduction, citing previous judgments to support the allowance of the claim. The Tribunal emphasized that commission payments in India were not a disqualifying factor if they contributed to the sale through advertisement and publicity.In contrast, the claim for Rs. 3,03,146 related to carriage of goods, which had been rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Special Bench. The assessee argued that the Special Bench judgment was not binding and cited a different Tribunal decision. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this argument, upholding the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal clarified that under sub-clause (iii), expenditure on insurance, even if incurred outside India, was not admissible for weighted deduction. The Tribunal found the Jaipur Bench's interpretation contrary to the Special Bench's decision and rejected the claim based on this analysis.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the claim for commission payments but rejecting the claim for expenditure on carriage of goods abroad. The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly applying relevant legal precedents and interpreting statutory provisions in determining the eligibility for weighted deductions under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.