( 1 ) LEAVE granted in SLP (C) No. 23072 of 2002. ( 2 ) THE assessment year in question is 1981-82. The question which has arisen for determination is whether the interest paid by the appellants branch in Bangkok to its customers on deposits made by the customers would qualify for weighted deduction under Section 35-B (l) (b) (iv) of the Income tax Act, 1961. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal noted that the appellant had been allowed this weighted deduction for the past years albeit under Section 35-B (l) (b) (iv ). It was held that on a perusal of the balance-sheet of the Bangkok branch of the appellant, the foreign branch was providing banking services and facilities to its foreign customers with the help of deposits and borrowings from the Bank. It was held that since there was no dispute that the appellant was not permitted by reserve Bank of India to increase its capital in the Bangkok branch so that the appellant was compelled to render banking services out of the deposits and the borrowings made by it, it could be held that the monies paid by the appellant to its customers by way of interest on the deposits and borrowings would qualify for weighted deduction under Section 35-B (l) (b) (iv) of the act, ( 4 ) THE High Court has reversed the decision of the Tribunal and has relied on the decision of this Court in Aravinda Paramila Works v. CIT in rejecting the submission of the appellant that it was entitled to make deduction on the interest paid by it to its customers at its foreign branch. In arvinda Paramila Works this Court has said:"11. What is required is an analysis of the provisions of Section a 35-B (l) (b) (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 sales outside India of the assessees goods, services or facilities. Therefore, what is requisite is that the assessee should have maintained the branch office or agency outside India. It is a lso requisite that such branch, office or agency should be for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessees goods, services or facilities. Therefore, what is requisite is that the assessee should have maintained the branch office or agency outside India. It is a lso requisite that such branch, office or agency should be for the promotion of sales outside India of the assessees goods, services or facilities. When payment is made, as here, by an assessee 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 assessees 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 assessees sales in general. " ( 5 ) WE have considered the reasoning of the High Court which is unexceptionable. Indeed, the issue appears to have been resolved by the decision of this Court referred to above. The appeals are, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs.