Devinder Gupta, J. ( 1 ) FOLLOWING questions of law have been REFERRED TO to this Court for opinion by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not right in law in holding that the sales effected in India against foreign currency also received in India should be considered as export sales for the purpose of deduction under Section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in law in allowing weighted deduction under Section 35-B on sales promotion expenses of the nature of liquor, tea, coffee, etc. , which are not covered by the provisions of the Act?" ( 2 ). As per the statement of facts, the assessee a registered firm deals in ivory goods, jewellery and other handicrafts. Part of the sales for Rs. 8,00,000. 00 during the assessment year 1976-77 were by way of export of goods outside India. There were certain other sales in India against foreign currency received in India amounting to Rs. 21,00,000. 00. Proceeds were realised in Indian-currency but the sales were stated to have been made to foreign nationals. Weighted deduction on the entire expenditure totalling Rs. 8,84,920. 00 was claimed by the assessee, which was incurred on earning this income. The Income Tax Officer completely denied the claim of the assessee. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held that the assessee was entitled to get deduction on export of goods outside India to the extent of Rs. 8,00,000. 00. In respect of other sales, it was held that the assessee was not entitled for weighted deduction. Before the Tribunal reference was made to the order of the Tribunal for the earlier assessment year 1975-76. On that basis the Tribunal held that the sales to the extent of Rs. 21,00,000. 00 were against foreign currency received in India, therefore, the same were export sales. In this background, the first question of law has been REFERRED TO for opinion. ( 3 ). The question REFERRED TO are now covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Step-well Industries Ltd. and Others, (1997)228 I. T. R. 171, and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and Another, (1997) 228 I. T. R. 463. ( 3 ). The question REFERRED TO are now covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Step-well Industries Ltd. and Others, (1997)228 I. T. R. 171, and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hero Cycles Pvt. Ltd. and Another, (1997) 228 I. T. R. 463. Expenses towards Export Markets Development Allowance can be allowed under Section 35-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if they are wholly and exclusively incurred for any of the services mentioned in various sub-clauses of Sections 35-B ( I ) (b ). There is no way for any other expenditure that can be given weighted deduction under Section 35-B (1) of the Income Tax Act. , 1961. The expenditure cannot be allowed under Section 35-B generally, unless it is established by the assessee that the expenditure is wholly and exclusively incurred for any of the purposes mentioned in Sub-clauses (i) to (ix) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 35-B. Some of the sub-clauses provide that if the expenditure is incurred in India, it cannot be allowed but in some of the sub-clauses the requirement is not there. In such cases, the expenditure mayor may not be incurred in India. Every case will have to be examined in the light of the provisions of sub-clauses. ( 4 ). On the facts found none of the expenditure is proved to have been wholly or exclusively incurred for any of the purposes mentioned in either of the subclauses and as such both the questions are answered in affirmative, namely, in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee. Questions answered in affirmative.