https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35755 The court ruled against the assessee on both issues. The claim for export markets development allowance under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act was disallowed as the expenditure on carriage of goods and insurance charges related to export commodities did not qualify for weighted deduction. Regarding relief under section 80J, the court held that borrowed capital should not be considered as capital employed, in line with an amendment specifying exclusion of borrowed money and debts for computing capital employed. The department's position was upheld, denying the assessee eligibility for both allowances. en-us Tue, 08 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:14:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35755 The court ruled against the assessee on both issues. The claim for export markets development allowance under section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Income-tax Act was disallowed as the expenditure on carriage of goods and insurance charges related to export commodities did not qualify for weighted deduction. Regarding relief under section 80J, the court held that borrowed capital should not be considered as capital employed, in line with an amendment specifying exclusion of borrowed money and debts for computing capital employed. The department's position was upheld, denying the assessee eligibility for both allowances. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 08 Sep 1981 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=35755