| Case ID |
155321fc-a80d-43f7-aacf-20c8955a6f75 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.A. No. 3788 OF 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 01, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 01, 1999 |
| Decision |
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals of the Revenue, affirming the High Court's decision that the provisions of section 40(a)(v) and 40(c) do not apply to employees of the assessee in its overseas branches. The Court held that the assessee was entitled to a weighted deduction under section 35B for the expenditure incurred on export of tea from East Africa to the United Kingdom. The Court clarified that the requirement for the export to be made directly from India was not applicable, and the expenditure incurred outside India was valid for deduction. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case C.A. No. 3788 OF 1999, the Supreme Court of India addressed crucial issues related to the Income Tax Act, particularly sections 40 and 35B. The case involved the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation, which had claimed a weighted deduction for expenses related to the export of tea from East Africa to the United Kingdom. The Revenue disallowed these claims, asserting that the deductions under section 35B were only applicable to exports made directly from India. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the law does not impose such a restriction and that the expenditure incurred for services performed outside India is eligible for deduction. This decision is pivotal for companies engaged in international trade, especially in contexts where services and goods are exported from locations outside of India. The ruling highlights the importance of understanding the nuances of tax law and the interpretation of provisions that govern deductions for business expenditure. It sets a precedent for future cases regarding the applicability of tax deductions for overseas operations, reinforcing the notion that businesses can benefit from deductions even when their operations extend beyond Indian borders. This case serves as an essential reference for tax professionals and businesses navigating the complexities of the Income Tax Act, 1961, particularly in relation to international transactions. |
| Court |
Supreme Court of India
|
| Entities Involved |
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,
BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION
|
| Judges |
D. P. Wadhwa,
S. S. M. Quadri
|
| Lawyers |
K.N. Rawal,
M.L. Verma,
Ranjit Kumar,
Ankur Chauhan,
R. Karanjawala,
Nandini Gore,
M. Karanjawala
|
| Petitioners |
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
|
| Respondents |
BOMBAY BURMAH TRADING CORPORATION
|
| Citations |
2001 SLD 662,
2001 PTD 818,
(2000) 242 ITR 298,
(2000) 82 TAX 550
|
| Other Citations |
CIT v. Continental Construction Ltd. (1998) 230 ITR 485 (SC),
Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1991) 188 ITR 122 (Bom.),
Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation Ltd. v. CIT (1984) 145 ITR 793 (Bom.),
Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT (1990) 185 ITR 178 (Delhi)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income Tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
40(a)(v),
40(c),
35B
|