Holding

Payment of commission to an agent abroad does not constitute maintenance of an agency under Section 35B(l)(b)(iv), and therefore the weighted deduction is not available.

Summary

The appellant, ArvinDA Paramila Works, a manufacturer of agarbathis, exported its products in AY 1981‑82 and paid commissions to agents located abroad for procuring export orders. It claimed a weighted deduction under Section 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the commission expenditure, arguing that the payments constituted maintenance of an agency abroad. The Assessing Authority disallowed the claim, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it, but the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court reversed the allowance. The Supreme Court examined whether commission paid to foreign agents falls within the meaning of “maintenance of a branch, office or agency” prescribed by the statute. Relying on the statutory language and the requirement of exclusive, wholly incurred expenditure on the maintenance of an agency actually maintained by the assessee, the Court held that such commission payments are not maintenance of an agency and therefore do not qualify for the weighted deduction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether payment of commission to agents abroad amounts to “maintenance of an agency” within the meaning of Section 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Whether such commission expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively for the promotion of sales outside India to qualify for the weighted deduction.

Legislation cited

Income Tax Act, 1961s. 35B(l)(b)(iv)

Subjects

Income TaxSection 35Bweighted deductionagency maintenancecommissionexportforeign agentsinterpretation of "agency"ejusdem generis

Judgment

A ARA VINDA PARAMILA WORKS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

MARCH 3 I, 1999

B [S.P. BHARUCHA AND R.C. LAHOTI, JJ.)

Income Tax Act, 1961-Sec. 35B(J)(b)(iv)-Deductions on expenditure
incurred on maintenance of an agency for promotion of sales abroad-
Assessee-Export of goods-Commission paid to agent abroad for procuring
C orders-Claims for weighted deduction-Entitlement of-Held, payment of
commission to agents abroad does not amount to maintenance of agency-
Not entitled to claim deduction.

Words & Phrases:

D "Agency"-Meaning_ and interpretation of in the context of S.
35B(J)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Appellant-assessee manufactured agarbathis and exported them during
the Assessment year. It paid commission to agents outside India for procuring
orders. On the expenditure incurred on agents, a weighted deduction under
E S. 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the income Tax Act, 1961 was claimied. It was disallowed
by the income Tax officer; but allowed by the Commissioner oflncome Tax
(Appeals). However, the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court disallowed the
said claim. Hence the present appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
F
HELD : 1.1. Payment of commission to an agent abroad is not
maintenance of an 'agency' within t.he meaning of S. 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, appellant-assessee is not entitled to claim
weighted deduction under S. 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the Act. (349-H; 351-E-F]
G 1.2. The expenditure that is referred to In S. 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the Act
has to be incurred on the maintenance outside India of a branch, office or
agency for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's goods,
services or facilities. Therefore, what is requisite is that the assessee should
have maintained a branch, office or agency outside India. It is also requisite
H that such branch, office or agency should be for the promotion of sales
348
r

ARVINDA PARAMILA WORKS v.C.I.T. [BHARUCHA, l.] 349
outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities. When payment A
is made, as in the irista~t case, by an assessee as commission to agents
outside Indfa who had procured orders, the requirements of clause (iv) are
far from satisfied. Thus, there is, in the first place, no maintenance by the
assessee of an agency. Secondly, the expenditure has to be incurred on the
promotion of sales of the assessee's goods outside India. When expenditure B
is incurred by way of payment of commission on particular sales, that is not
expenditure on the promotion of the assessee's sales in general. [352-F-H)

2. There is some merit in the observation of Karnataka High Court in
Mysore Sales• case that the words "branch, office or agency" in the clause
draw colour from each other and that the word 'agency' should , therefore, C
be interpreted in the light of the words "branch" and 'office', it is, in any
event, very clear that even if the agency is an agency established not by the
1
assessee but by a tbird party, the agency must be maintained by the assessee.
[353-A-BJ

*Chief Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mysore Sales international Ltd., D
195 ITR 457, approved.

C.l T. v. Usha Telehoist Ltd, 212 ITR 177; Commissioner of Income Tax
v. Assam Frontier Tea Ltd, 224 ITR 398 and Commissioner of Income Tax
v. Pooppally Foods, 161 ITR 729, disapproved.
E
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Cadila Laboratories (P) Ltd., 221 ITR
35, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal; No. 11366 of
1995.
F
From the Judgment and Orde~ dated 12.12.94 of the Karnataka High
Court in I. T.R.C. No. 58 of 1991.

G. Sarangan and P.R. Rmasesh for the Appellant.

B.P. Ahuja, Mrs. Neera Gupta and S.K. Dwivedi for the Respondent. G
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

BHARUCHA, J. The question in this appeal is wh~~~er payment of
commission to an agent abroad is maintenance of an ag~ncy within the
meaning of Section 35B(l)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The High H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A Courts_have taken divergent views.

We are concerned with the Assessment Year 1981-82. The assessee
manufactured agarbathis. It had exported agarbathis during the year under
consideration. It had paid commission to agents outside India who had
procured orders. It claimed weighted deduction under the afore-mentioned
B provision in respect of such expenditure ofRs.13,23,225. It was disallowed by
the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) took a
contrary view. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the Commissioner
(Appeals) was not justified in allowing the said weighted deduction. From out
of the judgment and order of the Tribunal, the following question was referred
C to the High Court for its considerations :

"Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
Tribunal was justified in holding that the applicant was not entitled
to the weighted deduction under S.35B (l)(b)(iv) of the Act, in respect
of the commission payments made to agents outside India?"
D The High Court answered the question in the affJ.nnative and in favour
of the Revenue, following its earlier decision in Chief Cdmmissioner ofIncome
Tax v. Mysore Sales International Ltd, 195 ITR 457. The assessee is in al?.peal
by special leave .

E Section 35B states that where an assessee, who is resident in India, has
incurred, directly or in association with any other person, any expenditure
referred to in clause (b) thereof, he would be allowed a deduction of a sum
equal to be one and one-third times the amount of such expenditure incurred
during the previous year. So far as is relevant, clause (b) reads :

F "the expenditure referred to in clause (a) is

that incurred wholly and exclusively on-

(i) ................ .

G (ii) ............... ..

(iii) ................ ;and

(iv) maintenance outside India of a branch, office or agency for the
promotion of the sale outside India of such goods, services or facilities;

H
ARVINDA PARAMILA WORKS v.C.I.T. [BHARUCHA, J.) 351
The question, therefore, is whether the commission that the assessee A,
had paid to' agents outside India who had procured orders was expenditure
on the maintenance outside India of agencies for the promotion of the sale
outside India of its agarbathis.

The High Court noted the contention on behalf of the assessee that the
expression 'agency' would include even a single agent and observed that this B
would have been relevant if it was shown that the establishment of the
agency outside the country had been maintained by the assessee, but there
was no material placed befo~e the Tribunal or any of the authorities concerned
r---
for claiming that an agency had been maintained by the assessee.

In Chief Commissioner of Income tax v. Mysore Sales International C
Ltd, (195 ITR 457) the Karnataka High Court took the view that the word
'agency' in the -aforesaid provision had to be read ejusdem generis with the
expression 'branch' and 'office' used in the said provision. The meaning
attributable to 'agency' would, therefore, have to be_ something which had
some flavour resembling that of a branch or office. That apart, the assessee D
had to maintain such agency for it was only such expenditure which could
fall within the ambit of the said clause. The word 'maintenance' could not be
equated with the concept of payments made depending on the actual wotk
turned out. It indicated that, irrespective of the work turned out, the agency
was maintained for its upkeep or preservation or sustenance; this alone could·
be termed as maintenance of an agency. Emphasis was also placed upon the E ·
opening words which required that the expenditure should be incurred wholly.
and exclusively on the activities mentioned in the sub-clauses. Therefore, it
was held that the maintenance of the agency for sale promotional purposes
alone was covered by the relevant words of sub-clause (iv) and such
expenditure should be entirely incurred for that purpose. In the case before F
the High Court, the commission f!ad included remuneration for the agent for
procuring a particular sale and, it was therefore, held to fell outside the ambit
of Section 35B.

The High Court of Calcutta in C.J.T. v. Usha Telehoist Ltd, 212 ITR 177
dissented from the view taken by the KarnAta:ka High Court in the case afore- G
mentioned. It observed that the principle of ejusdem generis applied only
where the mention of specific items of the same genus was followed by an
expression of residuary nature ;>ertaining to the same genus. In its view,
'agency' was an expression of which the content had nothing to do with the
preceding words, 'office' or 'branch'. If the assessee had an agency abroad
"that agency cannot refer to any independent establishment of the assessee H
352 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A being maintained abroad because agency always connotes the independence
of the agent". The requirement of the provision was sufficiently satisfied "if
there is an agent outside who promotes the sales of the assessee's exports."

The High Court at Gauhati in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Assam
Frontier Tea Ltd., 224 ITR 398 has followed the Calcutta High Court without
B assigning any independent reasons.
The Kera/a High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Pooppally
Foods, 161 ITR 729 has tak.en the same view as the Calcutta High Court, but
-
there is no discussion of the pmvision, apparently because the· Revenue had
never before chosen to raise the point that the expenditure there concerned
C would not fall within the ambit of the clauses in Section 35.
The Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v .. Cadi/a
Laboratories (P) Ltd., 221 ITR 35 referred to the meaning of the word 'agency'
as found in Haslbury's Laws of England. It is there stated that "the terms.
'agency' and 'agent' have in popular use a number of different meanings, but
D in law the word 'agency' is used to connote the relation which exists when
one person has an authority or capacity to create legal relations between. a
person occupying the position of principal and third paqies." In the case
before the Gujarat High Court, the expenditure had been incurred for.payment
of commission to agents in foreign countries for the purpose of promotion
of sale outside India and, in the High Court's view, that would "certainly be
E the amount of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for the promotional
sales outside India on maintenance of agency outside India." -
,..
What is required is an analysis of the provisions of Section 35B (lXb)(iv).
The expenditure that is referred to therein has to be incurred on the
maintenance outside India of a branch, office or agency for the promotion of
F sales outside India of the assessee's goods, services or facilities. Therefore,
what is requisite is that the assessee should have m~intained the branch,
office or agency outside India. It is also requisite that such branch, office or
agency should be for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessee's
goods, services or facilities. When payment is made, as here, by an assessee
G of commission to agents ·outside India who had procured orders, the
requirements of clause (iv) are far from satisfied. There is, in the first place,
no maintenance by the assessee of the agency. Secondly, the expenditure has
to be incurred on the promotion of sales of the assessee's goods outside
-
India. When expenditure is incurred by way of payment of commission on
particular sales, that is not expenditure on the promotion of the assessee's
H sales in general.
ARVINDA PARAMILA.WORKS v.C.I.T. [BHARUCHA, J.] 353
While we think that there is some merit in the observation of the A
Kamataka High Court that the words "branch, office or agency" in the clause
draw colour from each other and that the word 'agency' should, therefore, be
interpreted in the light of the words 'branch' and 'office', it is, in any event,
very clear that even if the agency is an agency e~tablished not by the
assessee but by a third party, the agency must be maintained by the assessee. B
In the result, we uphold the view taken by the Kamataka High Court
in the judgment and order under appeal and dismiss the appeal with costs.

S.V.K.I. Appeal dismissed.