JUDGMENT : R.C. Mankad, J. The assessee is a registered partnership firm running a solvent plant. It carries on the business of crushing oil cakes and producing solvent refined oil, de-oiled cakes, etc. It exports deoiled cakes. The assessee claimed weighted deduction under section 35B. of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act", for short), in respect of the following items: Sl. No. Description Assessment Year 1973-73 1974-74 1974-75 1975-76 Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1 Weight 35,320 49652 8150 - 2 difference 116594 63993 711492 947040 3 Quality 11400 15137 - 105190 4 allowance - 190492 9010 7175 5 Dalai - 9633 7316 - 6 Quota - - 17895 - 7 Slips - - 950135 Port godown rent Kharajat expenses 2. In the assessment for the assessment year 1972-73, the Income-tax Officer rejected the assessee's claim for weighted deduction in respect of the items set out above mainly on the ground that the expenditure was incurred in India and was not eligible to weighted deduction. For the assessment year 1973-74, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction on the ground firstly that the expenditure which was incurred by the assessee was in its ordinary course of business and as such did not fall for consideration under section 35B of the Act. He also held that the expenditure incurred for the payment on dalali, de-oiled cake, quota slip charges and analysis charges was incurred in India, and, therefore, the assessee's claim was not admissible. For the assessment year 1974-75, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction mainly on the ground that the expenditure incurred in India did not qualify for weighted deduction. For the assessment year 1975-76, the Income-tax Officer rejected the claim of the assessee for weighted deduction for the same reasons as stated for the earlier years. 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Income-tax Officer, went in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ("the Commissioner", for short). So far as the appeal for the assessment year 1972-73 was concerned, the Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the Income-tax Officer in regard to two items, i.e., weight difference and quality allowance. However, so far as expenditure incurred for dalali was concerned, he held that the assessee was entitled to one-third of the expenditure incurred by it. So far as the appeal for the assessment year 1972-73 was concerned, the Commissioner agreed with the view taken by the Income-tax Officer in regard to two items, i.e., weight difference and quality allowance. However, so far as expenditure incurred for dalali was concerned, he held that the assessee was entitled to one-third of the expenditure incurred by it. In appeal for the assessment year 1973-74, the Commissioner, relying on the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal ("the Tribunal", for short), held that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction in respect of only one-third expenditure incurred for dalali. In appeal for the assessment year 1974- 75, the Commissioner accepted the assessee's claim for weighted deduction only to the extent of ten per cent. of kharajat expenses. In appeal for the assessment year 1975-76, the Commissioner, following his order for the assessment year 1974-75, allowed weighted deduction only on dalali. As regards other items of expenditure for all the years, the assessee's claim for weighted deduction was rejected by the Commissioner. 4. On further appeal, the Tribunal found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee by way of dalali or brokerage would be eligible for weighted deduction in full as it was admittedly paid to various parties for bringing about the export sales. With regard to items like weight difference, quality allowance, quota slips and analysis charges, the Tribunal rejected the assessee's claim for weighted deduction and upheld the orders of the authorities below. Claim for godown rent for the assessment year 1974-75 was also rejected by the Tribunal. As regards kharajat expenses, it upheld the Commissioner's view that the assessee was entitled to weighted deduction to the extent of 10 per cent. of the said expenses. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal followed the decision of a Special Bench. 5. In the background of the above facts, the following question is referred to us for our opinion : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in respect of: Rs. Assessment Year 1972-73 : 1. Weight difference 35,320 2. Quality allowance 1,16,594 Assessment Year 1973-74 : 1. Quality allowance 63,993 2. Quota slips 1,90,492 3. Weight difference 49,652 4. Analysis charges 9,633 Assessment Year 1974-75 : 1. Quality allowance 9,47,040 2. Quota slips 1,05,190 3. Assessment Year 1972-73 : 1. Weight difference 35,320 2. Quality allowance 1,16,594 Assessment Year 1973-74 : 1. Quality allowance 63,993 2. Quota slips 1,90,492 3. Weight difference 49,652 4. Analysis charges 9,633 Assessment Year 1974-75 : 1. Quality allowance 9,47,040 2. Quota slips 1,05,190 3. Analysis Charges 7,175 Assessment Year 1975-76 : 1. Quality allowance 7,11,492 2. Quota slips 9,010 3. Weight difference 8,150 4. Analysis Charges 79,316 5. Godwon rent 17,895 6. Kharajat expenses 9,50,135 6. Mr. K.H. Kaji, learned counsel for the assessee at whose instance, the above question has been referred to us for our opinion, submitted that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction for all the aforesaid items of expenditure under sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 35B of the Act. He made it clear that the assessee was not basing its claim on any other provision of section 35B. Section 35B(1)(b)(iii) of the Act reads as follows : "35B. (1)(a) . . . (b) The expenditure referred to in clause (a) is that incurred wholly and exclusively on . . . (iii) distribution, supply or provision outside India of such goods, services or facilities, not being expenditure incurred in India in connection therewith or expenditure (wherever incurred) on the carriage of such goods to their destination outside India or on the insurance of such goods while in transit. " 7. According to the assessee, the aforesaid items of expenditure were incurred for distribution, supply or provision of the goods exported outside India and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect thereof. 8. We may first deal with the assessee's claim for deduction in respect of weight difference and quality allowance. It appears that the assessee had exported certain quantity of de-oiled cakes. However, when the goods reached their destination, they were found to be less in weight than what was specified. The assessee, therefore, received lesser price to the extent of the weight difference. We fail to see how this could be termed as an expenditure at all. If the assessee receives a lesser price on account of weight difference he could not be said to have incurred any expenditure for distribution, supply or provision of the goods exported. Therefore, there is no question of allowing any weighted deduction in respect of difference in price. Same is the case with quality allowance. If the assessee receives a lesser price on account of weight difference he could not be said to have incurred any expenditure for distribution, supply or provision of the goods exported. Therefore, there is no question of allowing any weighted deduction in respect of difference in price. Same is the case with quality allowance. The assessee was paid less for the goods exported because they were of inferior quality than the specified quality. This difference in payment also cannot be termed as expenditure incurred by the assessee for distribution, supply or provision of exported goods. Therefore, as in the case of weight difference, the assessee is not entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the difference in price on account of difference in quality. Now, so far as the expenditure incurred for quota slips is concerned, it appears that the assessee had to pay a price for purchase of rights of other parties to export goods, i.e., de-oiled cakes in which it was dealing. Quota rights for making exports were purchased from other parties and, for that purpose, the assessee had incurred expenditure. In other words, it had incurred expenditure for payment of price of the quota rights which are described as quota slips. Admittedly, this expenditure in purchasing the quota slips was incurred in India. Since the expenditure was incurred in India, it would not qualify for weighted deduction under the aforesaid sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b) of the Act. So far as the godown rent is concerned, it appears that the assessee had incurred expenditure in payment of rent for the godown where goods which were exported were stored. This expenditure was also, admittedly, incurred in India. Therefore, as in the case of expenditure incurred for quota slips, the assessee is not entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the expenditure incurred for godown rent. We, therefore, confirm the view taken by the Tribunal in disallowing the assessee's claim for weighted deduction in respect of weight difference, quality allowance, quota slips and godown rent. 9. So far as kharajat expenses are concerned, it is stated that they represented port charges for loading, unloading, shifting, survey fees, marking charges, etc. They also include payment made to Saurashtra Extraction Export House Private Limited. Full details as regards nature of services rendered by Saurashtra Extraction Export House Private Limited were not available. 9. So far as kharajat expenses are concerned, it is stated that they represented port charges for loading, unloading, shifting, survey fees, marking charges, etc. They also include payment made to Saurashtra Extraction Export House Private Limited. Full details as regards nature of services rendered by Saurashtra Extraction Export House Private Limited were not available. It was inferred that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of a substantial part of the said kharajat expenditure. As pointed out above, the Tribunal confirmed the view of the Commissioner that the assessee's claim for weighted deduction in respect of kharajat expenditure should be allowed to the extent of ten per cent. only. In other words, it rejected the assessee's claim for weighted deduction in respect of 90 per cent. of the kharajat expenditure. It is submitted on behalf of the assessee that the entire Kharajat expenditure should have been considered for weighted deduction. We do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the Tribunal. There is absolutely no evidence or material before us to show that the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction in respect of the entire kharajat expenditure. In fact, in the absence of details and satisfactory explanation on the part of the assessee, it is doubtful whether the assessee could have been allowed weighted deduction even in respect of ten per cent. of the kharajat expenditure. However, the Revenue has not sought any reference and, therefore, the question whether weighted deduction in respect of ten per cent. of the kharajat expenditure could have been allowed or not is not before us. In any case, the assessee has failed to make out a case for weighted deduction in respect of 90 per cent. of the kharajat expenditure which has been disallowed by the Tribunal. 10. Now, only one item of expenditure, i.e., expenditure incurred for analysis remains for our consideration. The assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs. 9,633 in the assessment year 1973-74, Rs. 7,175 in the assessment year 1974-75 and Rs. 79,316 in the assessment year 1975-76 for analysis of the goods exported. It is not disputed that, under the agreement with a foreign concern, namely, European Grains and Shipping Limited, the assessee had agreed to sell de-oiled cakes of certain specified quality. 9,633 in the assessment year 1973-74, Rs. 7,175 in the assessment year 1974-75 and Rs. 79,316 in the assessment year 1975-76 for analysis of the goods exported. It is not disputed that, under the agreement with a foreign concern, namely, European Grains and Shipping Limited, the assessee had agreed to sell de-oiled cakes of certain specified quality. It was agreed that in order to determine the quality of the de-oiled cakes which were to be exported by the assessee to the foreign concern, analysis was to be made. It was urged on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal that the goods exported were analysed to determine their quality and the entire expenditure for analysis in respect of which weighted deduction was claimed was incurred outside India. The Tribunal did not reject the assessee's claim on the ground that the expenditure was incurred in India. The Tribunal was of the view that expenditure incurred by the assessee for quality certificate on the basis of analysis was comparable with "AG Mark" certificate charges which were disallowed by the decision of a Special Bench of the Tribunal. Following the decision of the Special Bench, the Tribunal held that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction in respect of the charges for analysis. 11. In our opinion, the entire approach of the Tribunal is not correct. Analysis of the goods exported, i.e., de-oiled cakes, was directly connected with the supply of the said goods. The assessee was required to supply de-oiled cakes of certain quality and it was in order to satisfy the customers that the de-oiled cakes were of specified quality, it was required to get the de-oiled cakes analysed. The assessee had to bear the expenditure incurred for analysis. Analysis, it appears, was required to be done both prior to shipment and after the goods reached their destination. We are not concerned with the expenditure incurred for analysis prior to shipment. We are concerned with the expenditure which the assessee had incurred outside India for analysis. It was while supplying the goods exported to the foreign concern that the assessee had to satisfy the foreign concern about the quality of the goods. Therefore, as observed above, the expenditure which the assessee incurred for getting the goods analysed was directly connected with supply of the goods. It was while supplying the goods exported to the foreign concern that the assessee had to satisfy the foreign concern about the quality of the goods. Therefore, as observed above, the expenditure which the assessee incurred for getting the goods analysed was directly connected with supply of the goods. That being the position, in our opinion, the expenditure for analysis falls under sub-clause (iii) of clause (b) of section 35B(1) of the Act. Since the expenditure incurred was not incurred in India, it is required to be considered for weighted deduction. In our opinion, therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in disallowing the assessee's claim for weighted deduction for the expenditure incurred by way of analysis charges. 12. In the result, we answer the question which is referred to us in the negative and against the assessee in so far as items of expenditure other than analysis charges are concerned. We answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue in so far as the analysis charges are concerned. In other words, the assessee is entitled to weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act in respect of analysis charges of Rs. 9,633 incurred in the assessment year 1973-74, Rs. 7,175 in the assessment year 1974-75 and Rs. 79,316 in the assessment year 1975-76. The assessee's claim for weighted deduction in respect of the rest of the items of expenditure shall stand disallowed. Reference answered accordingly with no order as to costs.