1976 (6) TMI 38

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....enditure. The ITO refused it for both years. The AAC allowed it for both years. Hence these two appeals by the Department. 3. The fourth ground raised before us is that the AAC has failed to specify the particular sub-section of s. 35(1)(b) under which such items are admissible for weighted deduction. It is true that no particular sub-section has been referred to in the appellate order (Even in the assessment order it is not so indicated under what sub-section it was claimed and refused). But a reading of the appellant order where the AAC uses the words 'like obtaining information and submission of renders for the supply of goods' clearly establishes that the claim was allowed under s. 35B(i)(b)(ii) or 35B(i)(b)(v) or both. 4. The sub....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for disallowance is that it is a payment made locally. The payment in India is a bar only when the case falls under s. 35B(i)(b)(iii) of the Act. If the facts of the case fall under 35B(1)(b)(ii) or 35B(1)(b)(v), payment in India is not a bar. As regards the question whether it fell under 35B(1)(b)(ii) or 35B(i)(b)(v), we have, as indicated above, rejected the submission that the assessee had put forward only 35B(i)(b)(iii) before the ITO. We would have perhaps though that the finding of the AAC under s. 35B(i)(b)(ii) or 35B(i)(b)(v) is without much basis but for certain other salient features of the case. That these two persons were doing correspondence work is seen admitted in the third ground of appeal before us. Further, in the assessme....