TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 35X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... export freight and packing expenses amounting to Rs. 4,01,018 and Rs. 2,26,989, respectively ?" The assessee is a private limited company. This reference relates to the assessment year 1979-80. The controversy raised herein pertains to the disallowance of the claim. of the assessee for weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"), in respect of two items of expenditure on "export freight" amounting to Rs. 4,01,018 and the other "packing expenses" amounting to Rs. 2,23,989. There is no dispute that all these expenses were incurred by the assessee in India. It is also the admitted position in this case that the packing of the goods was done in India. So far as the controversy in regard to the claim of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the expenditure incurred after the 28th day of February, 1973, by a domestic company, being a company in which the public are substantially interested, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the words 'one and one-third times', the words 'one and one-half times' had been substituted. (b) The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on-- (i) advertisement or publicity outside India in respect of the goods, services or facilities which the assessee deals in or provides in the course of his business; (ii) obtaining information regarding markets outside India for such goods, services or facilities; (iii) distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, services o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n reading of the above section, more particularly the various sub-clauses of clause (b) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2), it is clear that this provision is enacted to cover mainly expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on activities specified therein undertaken or performed outside India for development of export market. The benefit of this provision has been made available only to an assessee, (i) being a domestic company, or (ii) a person (other than a company) who is resident in India. A non-resident or a foreign company which does not declare or pay dividend in India is outside the purview of this section. Besides, weighted deduction under this section is allowed only on expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order to be eligible to allowance of weighted deduction under this section, the expenditure must meet the description of expenditure specified in any of the sub-clauses of clause (b) of sub-section (1) thereof. Unless a particular expenditure falls in any one of the aforesaid sub-clauses of clause (b), no deduction can be allowed under this section. The contention on behalf of the assessee is that "packing expenses" fall either in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (viii) of clause (b). On a reading of these two sub-clauses, we find it difficult to accept this contention of the assessee. Sub-clause (i) deals with expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on "advertisement or publicity outside India" in respect of the goods, services or facil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ope of sub-clause (viii) because the packing in the instant case has not been done outside India. In that view of the matter also, it cannot fall in sub-clause (viii) even if it is held to be expenditure incurred in connection with supply of goods outside India. Counsel for the assessee referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Kesaria Tea Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 374 where, on the facts and circumstances of that case, allowance of weighted deduction on the printing of the cartons by the Tribunal was upheld by the High Court. On going through the above decision, we find that the controversy before the High Court was regarding allowance of weighted deduction on the cost of cartons used for packing the assessee's goods for ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guity in the language of the statute. Where the language is plain, precise and unambiguous, resort cannot be taken to this principle to give benefit to the assessee which the Legislature itself did not intend to give. It was observed: "....the well-settled principle of interpretation is that the statutory provision should be construed according to the plain natural meaning of its language. When the language of a particular provision is clear and according to the plain natural meaning thereof the assessee is not entitled to any rebate, relief or allowance, it is not for the court to strain and stretch the language of the statutory provision to enable the assessee to get such relief. Such an approach will be against all accepted principles ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
