COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI vs. STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC.

CIVIL APPEAL No. 1275/1992Supreme Court1997 INSC 62427 August 1997Bench: 2 JudgesAuthor: S.C. SEN, S. SAGHIR AHMAD COMMISSIONER OF12 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What were the facts?

The appeals before the Supreme Court concerned claims for weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Stepwell Industries Ltd. and others, claimed deductions for various expenditures, including commission payments, advertisement expenses, and expenses related to foreign branches. The Revenue contended that these expenditures did not qualify for the weighted deduction. The High Court had either declined to entertain questions of law or had passed orders that were under challenge. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining the allowability of these weighted deductions based on the facts and the provisions of Section 35B.

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that the onus lies heavily on the assessee to prove that the expenditure falls within any of the purposes set out in the various sub-clauses of Section 35B(1)(b). Merely because some activities took place outside India or some expenditure was incurred in India does not automatically qualify the expenditure for deduction. The Court emphasized that no expenditure can be allowed under Section 35B generally; the assessee must place particulars before the Income Tax Officer or Appellate Commissioner. If the assessee fails to do so, the deduction cannot be granted, nor can the Tribunal allow the claim on assumptions of fact. In several cases, the Court found that the Tribunal had erred in allowing weighted deduction without proper examination of the claim or without the assessee establishing a proper case under Section 35B(1)(b). Consequently, several orders of the High Court and the Tribunal were set aside, and the matters were remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law, giving the assessee an opportunity to establish their case. In some appeals, the Court found no merit and dismissed them.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in respect of commission payments (e.g., Rs. 1,46,678, Rs. 3,10,750)? (Mixed law and fact, concerning Section 35B(1)(b)). 2. Whether the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction under Section 35B for expenditures incurred in India in connection with the sale of goods? (Mixed law and fact, concerning Section 35B(1)(b)). 3. Whether obtaining information regarding the market outside India, as contemplated by Section 35B(1)(b)(ii), was established by the assessee? 4. Whether expenditures such as customs duty, repairs, and general expenses incurred by foreign branches qualified for weighted deduction under Section 35B? Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the expenditures incurred, including commission payments and expenses related to foreign activities, qualified for weighted deduction under various sub-clauses of Section 35B(1)(b), as they were for the promotion of sales outside India. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue contended that the onus was on the assessee to prove that the expenditure fell within the specified purposes of Section 35B(1)(b). Merely incurring expenditure outside India or having some activities outside India did not automatically qualify for the deduction. The Revenue also argued that expenditures incurred in India in connection with sales were not eligible.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 35B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

A COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI v. STEPWELL INDUSTRIES LTD. ETC. ETC. AUGUST 27, 1997 B [SUHAS C. SEN AND SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Income Tax Act, 1961. S. 35B(l)(b)-Weighted deduction-Held, in order to get the deduction, C onus lies 011 assessee to establish that expenditure falls within any of the purposes set out in various sub-clauses of Clause (b) of s. 35-B(J)-Merely becau~e some activities took place outside India or some expenditure was incu"ed in India, it will not qualify the expenditure for deductions mentioned in the section-No expenditure can be allowed under s.35B generally-Asses- see should place the particulars before I. T. 0. or Appellate CommissioneHf D asses see fails to do this, he cannot get the deduction-Nor can the Tribunal allow the claim on assumption of facts. E F G Addi. Commissioner of Income Tax Gujarat v. GuTjargravures Pvt. Ltd., 111 I.T.R. 1, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURJ JCTION : Civil Appeal No. 1275 of 1992 Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.91 of the Delhi High Court in l.T.C. No. 24 of 1991. T.V.L. Iyer, G.C. Sharma, Ms. Renu George, B.K. Prasad, H.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee, Vineet Kuma

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 35B

All 31 judgments and leading authorities on Section 35B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →