TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (6) TMI 73
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on Corporation Ltd., U. S. A., under section 35B(1)(b)(viii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the a mounts of Rs. 34,926 and Rs. 10,000 as well as Rs. 91,568 were allowable notwithstanding the provisions of section 80VV of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 3. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1 lakh ? Additional question in R. A No. 436/(Cal) of 1992 for the assessment year 1982-83 : 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 59,565 incurred for the assessee's proposed petro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ducts manufactured by the assessee. A commission of 25 per cent. of the net price was paid over and above the selling expenses and on this finding the Tribunal concluded that the export agency commission qualified for weighted deduction under sub-clause (iv) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. It is in this background the questions have been referred to this court. Learned counsel for the assessee urged that the first question stands concluded by two decisions of this court of which one is in the case of CIT v. Chloride India Ltd. [1992] 193 ITR 355 and the other is in the case of CIT v. Usha Telehoist Ltd. [1995] 212 ITR 177. However, this has been disputed by learned counsel appearing for the Revenue. He relied on a decision of this court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the maintenance of the agency outside India is for the promotion of sale outside India of the goods which the assessee deals in. The mere securing of information about the market conditions prevailing abroad cannot amount to sales promotion. In this case for ascertaining the purpose the case was remanded to the Tribunal and no proposition of law has been laid down as such. In the present case which is before us, since the expenditure, i.e., commission, was for sales promotion, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, it is agreed between the parties that it stands concluded by the three decisions of this court in the case of CIT v. United Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is concerned, it is conceded by learned counsel appearing for the Revenue that this question is a pure question of fact and need not be answered by this court. In view of this statement made by learned counsel appearing for the Revenue, we do not propose to answer this question. So far as question No. 4 is concerned, the Tribunal recorded the finding that the assessee spent an amount of Rs. 56,665 as project expenditure. The expenditure represented fees paid to Engineering India Ltd. in connection with the petro-chemical project report. The amount was paid by the assessee in order to explore the possibility of setting up of a petro-chemical project which could provide a captive plant for manufacture of raw material at the assessee's own ....