Delhi High Court
Cit vs Amber Tours (P) Ltd. on 5 September, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002 125 TAXMAN 451 Delhi
Author: D Jain
ORDER
D.K. Jain, J.
These matters have been placed before the court for appropriate orders as the revenue, at whose instance the references have been made, has failed to file the paper books. Since, in our view, answer to the question referred stands concluded by the decisions of the Apex Court in CIT v. Hero Cycles (P) Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 463 (SC) and CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd. (1997) 228 ITR 171 (SC) as also of this court in CIT v. International Exporters (1998) 233 ITR 23 (Del), we dispense with the filing of paper books and proceed to dispose of the matters.
2. The question, common to both the references, referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-C (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of ITAs No. 4899 & 4900 (Delhi)/ 1981, is as under :
2. The question, common to both the references, referred by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Delhi Bench-C (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') under section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arising out of ITAs No. 4899 & 4900 (Delhi)/ 1981, is as under :
"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessed-company, who is rendering services to the foreign tourists only in India, was entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ?"
As noted above, since answer to the aforenoted question stands concluded by various decisions, it is not necessary to state the facts. Even otherwise, the statement of the case forwarded by the Tribunal does not contain any details of the expenditure incurred by the assessed on which weighted deduction under the said section had been claimed. The only information which can be gathered from the question itself is that the expenditure have been incurred by the assessed in India on the foreign tourists visiting India.
3. In Stepwell Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that in order to attract the applicability of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B, the expenditure must have been incurred outside India. It is evident from the format of the question that it is not so in the instant case. Admittedly, the expenditure, on which weighted deduction has been claimed, has been incurred in India.
3. In Stepwell Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) the Apex Court has held that in order to attract the applicability of sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B, the expenditure must have been incurred outside India. It is evident from the format of the question that it is not so in the instant case. Admittedly, the expenditure, on which weighted deduction has been claimed, has been incurred in India.
4. In view of the settled legal position, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.
4. In view of the settled legal position, the question referred is answered in the negative, i.e., in favor of the revenue and against the assessed.
5. The references stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
5. The references stand disposed of with no order as to costs.
