JUDGMENT A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.— The appellants were the respondents in Writ Petn. Nos. 23605-606/2001 and 27215/1999. The respondents herein, were the writ petitioners. The learned Single Judge, by a common order dt. 25th July, 2003 [reported as A.S. Mani Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (2003) 184 CTR (Kar) 511 has allowed both the writ petitions. Aggrieved thereby, these appeals have been filed. 2. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petn. Nos. 23605-606/2001 in brief is that, he is a technician; he had entered into an agreement with M/s Italab (Japan) Ltd. for supply of service in the light of his experience In the international market and his service was rendered from India. He had applied to the appellants for approval of the agreement to enable him to claim deduction, provided under Section 80RRA of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The application was rejected on the ground that, no visits to abroad for rendering service are envisaged in the agreement. Assailing the decision, writ petition was filed. 2.1. The writ petition was contested by the appellants, by filing the statement of objections, inter alia contending that, the intention of the legislature is to the effect that, the benefit under Section 80RRA of the Act would be available only to the technicians who work abroad, in order to compensate them for the extra living costs abroad. 3. The case of the petitioner in Writ Petn. No. 27215/1999 in brief is that, he is working in the field of management and marketing, in the petroleum sector, has expertise, knowledge and experience in the said field and he was appointed as a consultant by a foreign company, M/s Oil Tanking GmbH of Hamburg, Germany to provide professional, managerial, technical service, in the petroleum sector. An agreement was entered into between him and the said foreign company, for a period of three years from April, 1998 to March, 2001, fixing the remuneration of US $ 4,750 per month, for service rendered to the foreign company. He was staying in India and was sending reports to the foreign company at Hamburg. He had filed an application before the competent authority for grant of approval under Section 80RRA of the Act for the service rendered to the foreign company outside India. Considering the application, the competent authority granted approval by an order dt. He was staying in India and was sending reports to the foreign company at Hamburg. He had filed an application before the competent authority for grant of approval under Section 80RRA of the Act for the service rendered to the foreign company outside India. Considering the application, the competent authority granted approval by an order dt. 2nd June, 1999, in terms of Section 80RRA of the Act, by imposing a condition that, "the approval for exemption is limited proportionally to the stay and work abroad, with the total amount received by applicant". The said order was questioned in the writ petition and relief was sought. 3.1. The appellants who were respondents filed statement of objections to the writ petition, supporting the said order dt. 2nd June, 1999 and seeking the dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned Single Judge by taking up the said writ petitions together for consideration, has passed the common order, setting aside the said conditional approval and has issued a direction to the Central Government to approve the agreement unconditionally and further directed to provide deduction in terms of Section 80RRA of the Act, to both the writ petitioners. 5. We have heard Sri R.B. Krishna and Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned advocates for the appellants and Sri G. Sarangan, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 5.1. Sri R.B. Krishna, learned Counsel for the appellants, contended as follows: (i) That the learned Single Judge has misdirected himself in ignoring the legislative intent as brought out in a memo filed before him, bringing out the fact that, 'stay outside India' is the basis for deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act; (ii) That legislature has specifically provided for situations where the benefit of deduction would be available for services rendered from India in terms of Section 80-O of the Act and there was no such provision under Section 80RRA of the Act; (iii) That the deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act would be available to a technician employed by an Indian concern and such a situation would arise only if the technician was physically out of India; (iv) That the reliance placed on the decisions in the case of Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others Vs. Aditya V. Birla, AIR 1988 SC 420 , in the case of C.S. Mathur Vs. Aditya V. Birla, AIR 1988 SC 420 , in the case of C.S. Mathur Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Ors., (1998) 4 AD Delhi 550 and in the case of Mahendra Raj Vs. Joint Secretary, Government of India and Others, (2002) 257 ITR 569 Delhi are not applicable and that, the learned Single Judge has committed an error of fact and law, in allowing the writ petitions and in granting the relief. 5.2. Sri M.V. Seshachala, learned Counsel, contended as follows: (i) That the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that, for granting approval under Section 80RRA of the Act to an assessee, the assessee should be rendering service to the foreign companies outside India by staying abroad; (ii) That the deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act would be available to a technician employed by a foreign company and even if he was paid in India, such a situation would arise only if the technician was physically outside India; (iii) That a mistake has been committed in ignoring the fact that, legislature has specifically provided deduction under Section 80(O) of the Act for services rendered from India and that, such persons cannot avail the benefit under Section 80RRA of the Act; (iv) That the object and intention of the legislature in extending the benefit were to provide certain tax benefits to those persons who stay abroad to commensurate with the expenses incurred by them during their stay abroad; (v) That if persons are staying in India, that extra expenses which they would have incurred, if they had stayed abroad, are fully saved, resulting in obtaining double benefit of the provision, as well as not incurring expenditure outside India; (vi) That the decisions relied upon by the learned Single Judge to pass the impugned order are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not in consonance with the provision of the Act. 5.3. Per contra, Sri G Sarangan, learned senior counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, by taking us through the record of the writ petitions and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error or illegality, in allowing the writ petitions and no interference is called for. 5.3. Per contra, Sri G Sarangan, learned senior counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners, by taking us through the record of the writ petitions and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, contended that, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error or illegality, in allowing the writ petitions and no interference is called for. According to the learned senior counsel, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in conformity with the legislative intent and also in tune . with the interpretation given to Section 80RRA of the Act by various Courts. Learned senior counsel by referring to the decisions cited by him before the learned Single Judge, made submissions in support of the findings recorded in the impugned order. 6. Learned Single Judge, in the impugned order has held that, in these days of technological development, one can render service without physically going outside India in terms of Section 80RRA which only provides for deduction for any services rendered by the assessee outside India and rendering of service outside India, need not be by physically remaining outside as contended by the Revenue and if such contention is accepted, the very object of the beneficial deduction is defeated and no narrow interpretation is possible. According to the learned Single Judge, any narrow interpretation would result in the country losing foreign exchange in addition to losing the services. In short, according to the learned Single Judge, to earn deduction in terms of Section 80RRA, outside stay or physical work outside India is not necessary. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel and after perusing the record, the point that arises for our consideration is: Considering the scope and purport of Section 80RRA of the IT Act, 1961, whether the learned Single Judge is justified in holding that, to earn deduction in terms of Section 80RRA of the Act, physical stay or physical work outside India is unnecessary ? 8. Chapter VI-A of the Act deals with various types of deductions. In the cases on hand, we are concerned with the deduction under Section 80RRA. Incidentally, the provisions contained under Sections 80-O, 80R and 80RR of the Act, have to be considered as well. 8.1. Section 80-O of the Act provides for deduction in respect of royalties etc. from certain foreign enterprises. In the cases on hand, we are concerned with the deduction under Section 80RRA. Incidentally, the provisions contained under Sections 80-O, 80R and 80RR of the Act, have to be considered as well. 8.1. Section 80-O of the Act provides for deduction in respect of royalties etc. from certain foreign enterprises. It provides that "any consideration for the use outside India of any patent, invention, design, trademark, etc.", deduction is permitted by a slab system. 8.2. Section 80R of the Act provides for deduction in respect of remuneration received from certain foreign sources in the case of professors, teachers, etc. It provides that "any remuneration received by an assessee outside India from any university or other educational institution established outside India or any association or body established outside India, for any service rendered during his stay outside India, in his capacity as a professor, teacher, or research worker in such university, institution or body", is entitled for deduction for such remuneration on slab basis. 8.3. Section 80RR of the Act provides for deduction in respect of professional income from foreign sources in certain cases. The provision refers to an author, playwright, artist, etc., deduction is permissible in respect of any income derived by the assessee in exercise of his profession from a Government of a foreign State, a certificate is required to be furnished in the prescribed form. 9. Section 80RRA of the Act, which is the material provision, required to be taken into consideration and interpreted for decision in these appeals, provides for deduction in respect of remuneration received for services rendered outside India. 9. Section 80RRA of the Act, which is the material provision, required to be taken into consideration and interpreted for decision in these appeals, provides for deduction in respect of remuneration received for services rendered outside India. The said section reads as follows: Where the gross total income of an individual who is a citizen of India includes any remuneration received by him in foreign currency from any employer (being a foreign employer or an Indian concern) for any service rendered by him outside India, there shall, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, be allowed, in computing the total income of the individual, a deduction from such remuneration of an amount equal to 75 per cent of such remuneration, as is brought into India by, or on behalf of, the assessee in convertible foreign exchange within a period of six months from the end of the previous year or (within such further period as the competent authority may allow in this behalf.) (underlining, italicized in print, is by us) 10. From a reading of the provision, it is evident that, deduction is permissible in respect of an individual who is a citizen of India for the remuneration received by him in foreign currency from an employer (being a foreign employer or an Indian concern) for services rendered by him outside India. The bone of contention between the parties is, with reference to the words "any service rendered by him outside India". The assessees contend that, it is unnecessary that, the service should be rendered by remaining outside India to avail the benefit, whereas, the Revenue contends that, to have the benefit of deduction under the section, it is mandatory that, the service should be rendered by the assessee by remaining outside India and not otherwise. 11. Though a liberal interpretation has to be given to a provision, the interpretation has to be as per the wordings of the section. If the wordings are clear and unambiguous then the benefits, which are unavailable under the section, cannot be conferred by expanding or misinterpreting the words in the section. In this case, we are concerned with the wordings "any service rendered by him outside India". 12. Sri G. Sarangan relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya V. Birla (supra). In this case, we are concerned with the wordings "any service rendered by him outside India". 12. Sri G. Sarangan relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditya V. Birla (supra). The question considered therein was "whether any remuneration was received by the assessee in foreign currency from his employer, being a foreign employer for service rendered by him outside India ?" The said decision is an authority for the proposition that, the deduction under Section 80RRA of the Act, need not be limited to 'salary' earned by a technician for service rendered abroad. 'Remuneration' will cover fees paid to a consultant or technician. In the said case, there was no dispute with regard to the sum having been received in foreign currency for the service rendered outside India. 12.1. The reliance placed on the decision in the case of C.S. Mathur (supra) is of no assistance to the instant case, since in the said decision, it has been held that, the assessee may claim the deductions either under Section 80-O or Section 80RRA of the Act. 12.2. Reliance placed on the decision in the case of Mahendra Raj (supra) is of no assistance for decision making herein, since it was held therein that, the benefits of Section 80RRA of the Act would be available to non-salary earners also. In the decisions stated supra, the point which has arisen now for consideration, namely, "for the services rendered outside India" has not been decided. 12.3. Sri G. Sarangan relied upon the decision in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala Vs. Tara Agencies, (2007) 292 ITR 444 SC, wherein, it has been held that the intention of legislature has to be gathered from the language used in the statute which means that, attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said and that it is the bounden duty and obligation of the Court to interpret the statute as it is. 12.4. Sri G. Sarangan also relied upon the decision in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay Vs. 12.4. Sri G. Sarangan also relied upon the decision in the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd., Bombay Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-II, Bombay, AIR 1992 SC 1622 to contend that, a provision in a statute granting incentives for promoting growth and development should be construed liberally and since a provision for promoting economic growth has to be interpreted liberally, the restriction on it too has to be construed to advance the objective of the provision and not to frustrate it. We will consider these aspects later. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellants cited the decision in the case of CIT v. Tara Agency [sic- K.R. Pradeep Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes, (2006) 282 ITR 526 Delhi, wherein the facts of the case were that, the petitioner who was a chartered accountant, provided professional service to foreign clients, outside India. He entered into an agreement with a foreign company at Japan to provide accountancy and management services, in terms of which, for the services rendered, he was to receive an aggregate fee. He claimed benefit of Section 80RRA of the Act, which was rejected by the CBDT on the ground that, one of the conditions to be satisfied for availing the benefits under Section 80RRA of the Act is that, there shall be service rendered outside India and from perusal of the agreement, it did not provide for physical presence abroad for work and hence, the case does not qualify for deduction under Section 80RRA. A further representation was submitted, which was also rejected. The said action of CBDT was questioned in the writ petition. Considering the contentions, it was held as follows: However, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of Section 80RRA of the Act because he has not rendered any service outside India for which he received the remuneration in question. Under Clause 3 of the agreement (which we have quoted hereinabove), there is no requirement to be physically present outside India and there is no specific pleading of the petitioner that he was physically present outside India when he rendered the service. It was further held that: A bare perusal of Section 80RRA of the Act clearly indicates that a person has to be physically present outside India while rendering service in question. It was further held that: A bare perusal of Section 80RRA of the Act clearly indicates that a person has to be physically present outside India while rendering service in question. The purpose for which Section 80RRA was enacted was held to be as follows: The purpose of enacting Section 80RRA as mentioned in the Memorandum Explaining the Provisions of the Finance Bill, 1975 [see K.L. Varadarajan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1974 SC 2357 a ], was that Indian technicians who work for a short period outside India during a financial year for a foreign enterprise are liable to pay Indian tax, if they remain resident in India for tax purposes in that year, on the whole of the remuneration received by them from the foreign employer, without any allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by them out of such remuneration for meeting higher living costs in foreign countries. Hence, to avoid this hardship Section 80RRA was enacted. It was further held that: Section 80RRA would be attracted only when a person claiming deduction has received remuneration in foreign currency. Convertible foreign currency in no situation can be received by an assessee who is working only in India. 14. An analysis of Section 80RRA reveals that in order to be entitled to the deduction or benefit of tax reduction at the rate enumerated in the section, the assessee who is a citizen of India, must have received the sum (i) By way of salary or remuneration; (ii) In foreign convertible currency; and (iii) From any employer (being a foreign employer or an Indian concern) for any service rendered by him outside India. Unless the said three ingredients are satisfied, the assessee is not entitled to claim benefit of deduction, as provided under Section 80RRA of the Act. 15. Learned Single Judge has not considered Section 80RRA in correct perspective. By only holding that, no narrow interpretation is possible, the impugned order has been passed, which is against both the intendment and the correct interpretation of the provision. Learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that physical stay outside India for the purpose of deduction in terms of Section 80RRA is unnecessary. By only holding that, no narrow interpretation is possible, the impugned order has been passed, which is against both the intendment and the correct interpretation of the provision. Learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that physical stay outside India for the purpose of deduction in terms of Section 80RRA is unnecessary. The exercise undertaken or the interpretation given to the section by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is against the plain reading of the provision and is contrary to all rules of construction, to read words into the statute, which the legislature in its wisdom have deliberately not incorporated. The construction placed by the learned Single Judge is against the legislative intendment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dadi Jagannadham Vs. Jammulu Ramulu and Others, AIR 2001 SC 2699 with regard to the principles of interpretation has held as follows: 13. We have considered the submissions made by the parties. The settled principles of interpretation are that the Court must proceed on the assumption that the legislature did not make a mistake and that it did what it intended to do. The Court must, as far as possible, adopt a construction which will carry out the obvious intention of the legislature. Undoubtedly, if there is a defect or an omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court would not go to its aid to correct or make up the deficiency. The Court could not add words to a statute or read words into it which are not there, especially when the literal reading produces an intelligible result. The Court cannot aid the legislature's defective phrasing of an Act, or add and mend, and, by construction, make up deficiencies which are there. When we literally read Section 80RRA, it is clear, unambiguous and produces an intelligible result that, it is applicable only to an assessee who brings in foreign convertible currency by way of remuneration, from a foreign employer, by rendering service outside India. 16. Sri G. Sarangan urged that a liberal construction has to be placed on the words "for any service rendered outside India". Learned Counsel submitted that, when two interpretations are possible to be made, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. 16. Sri G. Sarangan urged that a liberal construction has to be placed on the words "for any service rendered outside India". Learned Counsel submitted that, when two interpretations are possible to be made, the interpretation which is favourable to the assessee should be adopted. Though the contention at first blush appears to be sound, but the question is whether two views are possible to be taken on the interpretation of the expression "for any service rendered outside India". In our opinion, "for any service rendered outside India" admits only one interpretation. The interpretation which the learned Counsel suggested to the said words in the section, will not be full and complete and will render the meaning of the words in the section inconsistent with the object of Section 80RRA. Liberal construction does not mean overdoing or misreading the plain meaning of the section. There cannot be any impairment to the legislative intent or requirement and the spirit of the provision. In our opinion, to construe the words "for any service rendered outside India" in Section 80RRA of the Act as including the service rendered to a foreign employer or Indian concern, without physically going abroad and rendering service outside India, would be against the plain meaning of the term and also the legislative intent. Learned Single Judge has not interpreted the provision in accordance with the plain meaning thereof and the interpretation made by learned Single Judge is against settled principles of law and hence the impugned order herein is liable to be set aside. 17. Another ground urged by Sri G. Sarangan, learned Counsel for the writ petitioners, is based on the objective of Section 80RRA. Learned Counsel submitted that the objective of the section is to encourage the exchange of technical know-how by professionals and thereby augment the foreign exchange reserves so that the assessee and the country will be benefited. According to the learned Counsel, in such an event, the requirement of section is satisfied and the assessees are entitled to deduction of Income Tax. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, the income must be directly received by the assessee from a foreign employer or an Indian concern in convertible foreign currency and for the services rendered outside India i.e., by remaining outside. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the appellants contended that, the income must be directly received by the assessee from a foreign employer or an Indian concern in convertible foreign currency and for the services rendered outside India i.e., by remaining outside. According to them, the purpose for which the deduction is allowed to an assessee is contained in- the speech of the Finance Minister on the floor of the Parliament at the time of introduction of Section 80RRA into the Act, a copy of which has been annexed to the writ appeal, it has been stated as follows: 31. Tax relief in respect of remuneration received from foreign employers by Indian technicians, etc.-At present, Indian technicians, etc., who work for a short period during a financial year with a foreign Government or a foreign enterprise are liable to Indian tax if they remain 'resident in India' for tax purposes in that year, on the whole of the remuneration received by them from the foreign employer, without any allowance in respect of expenditure incurred by them out of such remuneration for meeting higher living costs and other essential expenditure in foreign countries. To relieve this hardship, the bill seeks to make a provision in the IT Act for allowing a deduction in the computation of the taxable income, of 50 per cent of the remuneration received by them from a foreign Government or a foreign enterprise or any association or body established outside India. In the case of the Central or State Government employees, this tax concession will be available in cases where the service outside India is sponsored by the Central Government and in the case of others, the tax concession will be available only if the person concerned is a 'technician' and his contract of service with the foreign employer is approved by the Central Government or by any other authority which may be prescribed in this behalf. For the purposes of this provision, a person will be regarded as a 'technician' if he possesses specialised knowledge and experience in specified fields or such other fields as may be prescribed in this behalf, and is employed by the foreign employer in a capacity in which such specialised knowledge and experience are actually utilised. For the purposes of this provision, a person will be regarded as a 'technician' if he possesses specialised knowledge and experience in specified fields or such other fields as may be prescribed in this behalf, and is employed by the foreign employer in a capacity in which such specialised knowledge and experience are actually utilised. In cases where the Indian deputationist renders continuous service abroad for more than thirty-six months, the remuneration received by him for any period of service after the expiry of the said thirty-six months, will not qualify for deduction under the proposed provision. 32. The new provision will take effect from 1st April, 1975 and will accordingly apply in relation to the asst. yr. 1975-76 and subsequent years. (Clause 17) 18. Considering the background under which the said provision was introduced in the statute book, it will be unreasonable to presume that the object of Section 80RRA is to supply technical know-how or render technical services and earn foreign convertible currency. In the circumstances, the contention of the assessees is unacceptable. In the instant case, the assessees have received the income for the services rendered, but the question is whether they have rendered services by remaining outside India. Since it is not the case of the assessees that they rendered services by being outside India or remaining outside India and have incurred any additional expenditure, they have failed to fulfil the principal condition of Section 80RRA of the Act namely, rendering of services outside India. Merely because they rendered services to a foreign employer by remaining in India, they are not entitled to the benefit of Section 80RRA and by directing the Government to allow the deduction, the learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the provision. Hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 19. Since it is not the case of the respondents assessees that, any remuneration was received by them in foreign convertible currency, from their respective employers, for the services rendered by them, by remaining outside India, the claim made by them in the writ petitions is untenable. Hence, the writ petitions are devoid of merit. 20. For the foregoing reasons, the writ appeals are allowed and impugned order is set aside. Consequently, the writ petitions stand dismissed. 21. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their respective costs.