This appeal by revenue for assessment year 1997-98 is directed against order of CIT (Appeals) allowing deduction of Rs. 1,40,50,080 claimed under section 80-O of Income-tax Act. 2. facts of case in brief are that appellant claimed to have rendered technical services out of India as buying agent and thus claimed to be eligible for deduction of Rs. 3,20,81,836 under section 80-O of Income-tax Act. However, as positive income was shown at Rs. 1,40,50,080, deduction under above provision was restricted to income shown. Assessing Officer was, however, of view that assessee merely rendered managerial services not of technical nature and thus requirement of section 80-O of Income-tax Act were not satisfied. deduction claimed by assessee was accordingly denied. Assessing Officer for his view relied upon decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT  118 ITR 312. 3. On appeal, CIT (Appeals) noted that assessee was rendering following services to its customers abroad: '1. Preparations of drawings and designs, supervision, and advising buyer on market trends etc. appellant employs designers/technicians for doing creative work for merchandise. 2. Providing merchandising assistance for selection of products from various vendors. 3. Evaluate factories for technological superiority and infrastructure. 4. Negotiation with vendors for best prices. 5. Protecting buyer's interest for patents, designs and trade-marks. 6. Working out logistics of whole movement of goods from vendors t o customers including freight forwarding, packing instructions and completion of bank formalities. 7. Inspecting goods online at factory premises in accordance with internationally accepted quality levels, evaluating patterns and designs of goods, conducting final inspections on random visual basis of final merchandise to be shipped. This includes material testing to ensure that merchandise to be shipped. This includes material testing to ensure that merchandise conforms to all specifications set forth in buyer's order sheets and sample designs. It also entails laboratory tests for checking goods for wet and dry crocking, colour fastness, tear tests etc. 8. above lab tests are also conducted to ensure that they meet specifications laid down by foreign regulatory authorities, e.g., AZO dyes. 9. Assisting buyers in negotiationg any claims which arise on account of quality or late deliveries. 10. Ensure that adequate compliance is there for international norms related to child and prison labour and also that factories follow standard norms for workers safety. appellant has in paper book placed copies of correspondence with foreign principals indicating scope and extent of services rendered to foreign customers. It is further emphasized that these services are professional/technical in nature and are not limited to merely passing on orders received from customers based overseas. Design and development of products, mainly garments requires skills and deep understanding of new fashion trends, innovative designs, new fabric developments and ability to be able to predict requirement of nebulous market. Competition for obtaining business is intense as customers usually work with more than one agent. To be in position to capture business of customer, assessee is required to make extensive portfolios. These include graphics of designs, colours, technical specifications and other details to enable customers to place maximum business with vendors located in India who work in consonance with assessee. few samples of portfolios made for some French customers have been exhibited for any perusal. Some purchase orders placed by customers on designs presented were also submitted.' After considering facts and circumstances of case and after considering submissions of both parties, learned CIT (Appeals) allowed relief to assessee, with following observations: 'On facts of case, I find that appellant is rendering service from India to foreign principals with regard to sourcing of produces from India. appellant constantly communicates with foreign principals and liaises with Indian customers. appellant makes available to foreign principal commercial information relating to fabrics in vogues, changing fashion trends, latest styles etc., which is evident from samples of portfolios shown to me. orders are placed by foreign principals on Indian customers on basis of such communication from appellant. Further appellant inspects products or samples thereof at premises of Indian customers to see that same conform to agreed specification and quality and arranges with buyer timely dispatches according to agreed schedule and keeps foreign principals constantly updated about same. appellant is qualified designer/merchandiser having substantial experience in then line of business to discharge function towards foreign principals. In view of aforesaid factual situation, I have no hesitation to hold that services rendered by appellant are professional and/or technical services. view taken by Assessing Officer that technical services would be restricted to services which are purely technical in nature involving scientific or engineering experience is taking too narrow view of matter as held by Supreme Court in case of Continental Construction Co. Ltd. and later in case of Oberoi Hotels Ltd. (supra). decision of Delhi High Court in case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by Assessing Officer was rendered in context of provisions of section 80-O as stood at material time. same, in my view, has no application under present section 80-O. Further said decision has been substantially diluted by Delhi High Court itself in later decision in case of Oberoi Hotels Ltd. which was subsequently approved by Supreme Court and judgment of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT  118 ITR 312 (Delhi) disapproved by Supreme Court. assessee's stand is supported by various decisions of Authority for Advance Ruling of Tribunal and CIT (Appeals) wherein deduction under section 80-O of Act has been held to be admissible on facts in those cases. In all those cases, services rendered by assessee from India were held to be professional and/or technical services qualifying for deduction under section 80-O of Act, even though assessee was not professionally/technically qualified. There is also substance in appellant's statement is that revenue itself having allowed deduction under section 80-O of Act to other buying agents rendering similar services. There is no decision to take different view in case of assessee. assessee's alternate arguments that even though services rendered by appellant are regarded as managerial services, as admitted by Assessing Officer, same would be regarded as technical services entitled to deduction under section 80-O merits acceptance. For all these reasons, I hold assessee is entitled to deduction under section 80-O of Act. Assessing Officer is directed to quantify deduction admissible to appellant after satisfying that appellant has fulfilled other conditions in this regard.' 4. revenue is aggrieved and has brought issue in appeal before Appellate Tribunal. learned senior Departmental Representative Shri K.C. Jain vehemently contended that assessee did not place agreement with all 42 parties from whom commission/fees was received by assessee in foreign exchange. He drew our attention to Explanation (iii ) to section 80-O of Income-tax Act which provided that deduction was not permissible in respect of services rendered in India. He emphasized that assessee in this case was rendering services to foreign buyers in India. Alternatively, he submitted that if certain portion of services was rendered outside India, then assessee could only be allowed deduction qua such portion of service. Deduction could not be allowed on whole amount. 5. learned Sr. D.R. further submitted that bifurcation of deduction under section 80-O was permissible in light of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Continental Construction Ltd. v. CIT  195 ITR 81. Shri Jain emphasized that in profit and loss account, receipt in dispute was shown as 'commission'. Later on it was added and shown as fees for 'technical services'. Shri Jain referred to and relied upon decision of Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT  145 ITR 673 (Bom.) in which it was held that assessee carrying on certain tests and certifying product to conform required specification - when Testing and certification done in its laboratory in India and not outside India, was held to be not entitled to deduction under section 80-O. Shri Jain also relied upon Third Member decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of East West Rescue (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT  81 ITD 160 wherein again it was held that transmission of information to foreign enterprises by any mode was not separate and independent activity d e hors medical treatment given to patients in India. Accordingly, it was held that assessee was not entitled to deduction under section 80-O in respect of consideration received for supply of such information. 6. Shri Jain submitted that as buying agent, primary service rendered by assessee was that of examining of goods supplied. All services rendered in connection with examination and supply and dispatch of goods exported were services rendered in India and in respect of those services, no deduction under section 80-O could be allowed. With reference to only agreement with sister concern of assessee Li & Fung, learned Sr. D.R. pointed out that composite payment @ 4% of export purchase (page 10 of paper book) was allowed to assessee. payment definitely included services rendered in India on which no deduction was permissible. Shri Jain also read out from pages 62, 63, 68 and 81 of paper book, filed by assessee, to contend that decisions cited and relied upon by learned CIT had no application in this case. He argued that assessee did not file any evidence to show that buyers had taken decision to import from India on account of information submitted by assessee. There is nothing to show that orders were placed and goods imported from India at suggestion of assessee. assessee might be developing designs, as reflected from claim under head 'Design and development charges' but there was nothing to show that expenditure did not relate to local receipts. onus to show that requirements of section 80-O were satisfied, was on assessee and said onus in this case was not discharged. If limited services were rendered abroad to foreign buyers in shape of technical services or relevant information was provided, then deduction was required to be limited to extent of services. On account of failure of assessee to file agreements with all buyers abroad, proper examination of case was not carried and, therefore, it was necessary to send back case to Assessing Officer to examine and restrict allowance of deduction under section 80-O to services rendered outside India as envisaged by statutory provision. 7. Shri Ajay Vohra, learned counsel for assessee supported impugned order of learned CIT(A). He argued that details of services and role of assessee as 'agent' was placed in detail before Assessing Officer. As buying agent of foreign principal, assessee is involved in collecting information relating to trends and designs in India, what material and fabrics are available which can be exported. He has to collect source of pattern from India, scout market and find manufacturers in India who can supply quality goods. fair assessment of suppliers in India on behalf of foreign buyers is required to b e made and this information is required to be collected and sent abroad. assessee is not ordinary commission agent, as understood in India. assessee has employed large number of designers to prepare samples, for making selection of garments to be imported to principals abroad. After procuring orders, goods to be exported are got prepared from suppliers as per specifications. This is also service which is rendered outside India. For carrying its duty, assessee was maintaining offices in Delhi, Mumbai, Tirpur near Madurai and other places. Shri Vohra further argued that learned CIT(A) allowed relief to assessee after considering statutory provisions and relevant facts and circumstances of case. Relevant case law was appreciated and applied in this case. Statutory provisions of section 80-O are extracted in page 7 of order of CIT(A). Explanation (iii ) to section 80-O further supports case of assessee. As services rendered by assessee though originated from India ended at place abroad where principal of assessee was situated. On basis of receipt of services, decisions are taken by foreign buyers. So fees in foreign exchange is received by assessee for technical services rendered abroad. This view as per Sri Vohra was fully supported by Circular No. 700 of CBDT. Copy of circular is available at page 96 of paper book. In order to CBDT. Copy of circular is available at page 96 of paper book. In order to determine question, it has to examine activities of service provider and recipient of services. According to learned counsel following questions are required to be asked: (i ) To whom services were rendered? (ii ) Who was receiving services and at what place? (iii ) Who was required to pay for services rendered? Shri Vohra further submitted that for rendering professional services, it was not necessary that person rendering services should be academically qualified. Experience was also qualification for rendering professional services. Shri Vohra drew our attention to detail of design charges paid to show that large number of expert designers were employed by assessee. Above evidence clearly established that professional and technical services were rendered by assessee. 8. It was further contended by Shri Vohra that all decisions relied upon by learned DR related to years prior to introduction of Explanation (iii ). Further these decisions relate to period when words 'professional and technical services' were not incorporated in section 80-O. Shri Vohra further submitted that decision of Delhi High Court in case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT  118 ITR 312 was not accepted by Delhi High Court in case of Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd. v. CBDT  135 ITR 257. Shri Vohra further drew our attention to decision in case of CBDT v. Oberoi Hotels (India) (P.) Ltd.  231 ITR 148 (SC). He also referred to page 19 of paper book which contained some of correspondence carried on by assessee with its principals. Some evidence was available at page 29 as to how samples were placed/approved and orders placed with buyers for export of goods. At page 57, services rendered by assessee have been enumerated. Shri Vohra maintained that services were not rendered in India, although these are rendered from India. assessee carried on preparatory work to enable foreign buyers to select garments to be exported. decision in case of Continental Construction Ltd. (supra) had no application. Likewise, Shri Vohra said that decision of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna in case of Kamkap (India) v. Dy. CIT  67 ITD 237 was distinguishable as in said case, services were rendered in India. Further, in decision, Circular No. 700 was referred to but was not given due importance. Shri Vohra further argued that even broker was treated to be performing technical services and, therefore, entitled to deduction under section 80-O of IT Act. He referred to and relied upon decision in case of K.C. Saigal v. ITO  54 ITD 488 (Delhi). Learned counsel further relied upon following decisions: Dy. CIT v. Mittal Corpn.  77 ITD 270 (Delhi), affirmed by Delhi High Court in CIT v. Mittal Corpn.  272 ITR 87 (Delhi). CIT v. Inchcape India (P.) Ltd.  273 ITR 92, (Delhi). Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT  80 ITD 176 (Cal.). Dy. CIT v. Reliance Industries Ltd.  88 ITD 273 (Mum.). A.S. Mani, In re  227 ITR 380 (AAR). 9. learned Departmental Representative in rebuttal submitted that there was no evidence on record to show that any design or pattern was developed in India. As buying agent, assessee was collecting samples and supplying those samples to buyers outside India. Evidence of services rendered was not placed on record. agreement with Li & Fung was placed but agreements with other parties and what services were rendered are not placed on record. revenue has no objection to re-examination of case with emphasis on detail of services rendered by assessee. Assessee was only communication agent and had no role in identifying suppliers or in selecting supplies. If quality check etc. was carried by assessee then it was only service rendered in India and in light of decision in case of J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. (supra), no deduction could be allowed to assessee under section 80-O. Explanation (iii ) to section was only clarificatory in nature which did not change position of law as it earlier existed. No evidence on record to show that foreign buyers made selection of suppliers, on basis of information supplied by assessee. learned Sr. D.R. further submitted that distinction relating to services rendered in India and services and information supplied from India has to be kept in mind. But from order of CIT(A), this was not evident. Therefore, for proper examination of issue, case should be remitted back to Assessing Officer. 10. We have given careful thought to rival submissions of parties. relevant provision of section 80-O with Explanation (iii ) applicable in period under consideration were as under:- 'Where gross total income of assessee, being Indian company, or person other than company who is resident in India, includes any income by way of royalty, commission, fees or any similar payment received by assessee from Government of foreign state or foreign enterprise in consideration for use outside India of any patent, invention, model, design, secret of formula or process or similar property right, or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill made available or provided or agreed to be made available or provided to such Government or enterprise by assessee, or in consideration of technical or professional services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India to such Government or enterprise by assessee and such income is received in convertible foreign exchange in India, or having been converted into convertible foreign exchange outside India, is brought into India, by or on behalf of assessee in accordance with any law for time being in force for regulating payment, and dealing in foreign exchange, there shall be allowed, in accordance with and subject to provisions of this section, deduction of amount equal to fifty per cent of income so received in, or brought into India, in computing total income of assessee; ** ** ** Explanation: For purpose of this section- (iii ) services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include (iii ) services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include services rendered from India but shall not include services rendered in India.' 11. decision, on interpretation of section 80-O, cited by parties at bar, may be referred to at out set. In case of K.C. Saigal v. ITO  54 ITD 488 (Delhi), assessee claimed that royalty was received from foreign enterprises for carrying liaisoning between foreign ship-owners and Indian companies intending to send their cargo abroad. assessee was signing agreements on behalf of foreign ship-owners and had been supplying specialized information to both parties gathered from available sources and earned Brokerage at rate of 1.25% of freight paid. 12. Hon'ble Bench after considering facts and circumstances of case held that fees were received by assessee for furnishing information outside India and such information was concerning Industrial, Commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill. Bench further observed as under:- 'With reference to receipt of income by assessee on account of brokerage in convertible foreign exchange, in light of provisions of section 80-O, clarification furnished by Reserve Bank of India on 4-10- 1986 in case of J.B. Boda & Co. (P.) Ltd., relevant documents and other relevant submissions made by parties, one could say that having regard to spirit of provisions for receipt of income in convertible foreign exchange in India, assessee had met with requirements of law as it was receiving payment either directly from foreign ship-owners or through banks after deduction made by Indian party in foreign currency was converted into Indian rupees. Therefore, assessee had essentially met requirements stipulated in section 80-O for receipt of income in convertible foreign exchange. Thus, claim of assessee was to be allowed.' In J.K. (Bombay) Ltd. v. CBDT  118 ITR 312, Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that assessee acting as Managing Agents for foreign company did not provide any technical service and assessee therefore not entitled to deduction. As information which was commercial in nature, assessee is held to be not covered by section for following reasons:- 'Therefore, information conveyed may include many kinds of information though technical services rendered would not include commercial services rendered by company. To sum up, main reason why word 'technical' in section 80-O cannot be given wider meaning to include 'managerial' or 'commercial' is that performance managerial or commercial services by Indian company for foreign enterprises would amount to virtually managing of running foreign company and remuneration obtained by running or managing foreign company would be in nature of profits, while section 80-O deliberately restricts itself to income by way of royalty, commission or fees and excludes other types of remunerations.' 13. It is evident from above that decision in above case was given on peculiar facts of case. assessee claiming deduction under section 80- O was Managing Agent and was held to be performing only managerial services. This case, decided prior to amendment and introduction of Explanation ( iii), has no application to facts of case. 14. In case of Dy. CIT v. Mittal Corpn.  77 ITD 270 (Delhi), Their Lordships have observed as under:- 'The dispute was whether assessee was providing his commercial knowledge, experience or skill or not. assessee was supplying information like size of item, use of item, then he got orders from foreign buyers, then material was supplied as per their requirement and then commission was received. This was purely work of commercial knowledge, experience and skill. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in allowing deduction under section 80-O. In present case this was not merely information collected from commonly available source, but assessee had developed data base and infrastructure by contacting different markets in India and outside India. He had kept himself up to date with new developed commercial trends, foreign trade policies, pattern of global demands and supply of goods and merchandise. most important thing was that assessee only provided information collected to foreign buyers and did not buy their goods from them. foreign buyers placed orders directly on suppliers, supplier shipped goods directly to foreign buyers. foreign buyer made payments directly to supplier and paid only commission to assessee. goods were insured by foreign buyers, these were shipped by foreign line on instructions of foreign buyers. At no point of time assessee became owner of goods or became responsible for safety of goods. He had only provided his commercial knowledge, experience or skill. assessee was not exporter. He did not sell goods abroad as exporter does. He only sold his information and on basis of this information foreign buyer paid and imported. Therefore, looking these facts, these activities were commercial in nature. Therefore, there was no infirmity of any kind, legal or otherwise, in findings of Commissioner (Appeals).' 15. In case of Overseas Merchandise Inspection Co. (India) (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT  80 ITD 176 Kolkata Bench observed as under: 'It was not in dispute that assessee had received its income in convertible Foreign Exchange. Therefore, only issue that remained to be investigated was regarding nature of service rendered by assessee. assessee brought on record letter addressed to Dy. Commissioner wherein it had been written that assessee conducted inspection/survey as to quality, quantity and also price of cargos exported from India. nature of service rendered by assessee had not been disputed by revenue. After inspection assessee used to issue certificate of inspection which was called report of findings. Some of sample copies of report placed on record showed that report was issued according to Import Regulation of Republic of Kenya. From aforesaid facts it was clear that Government clients of different countries required aforesaid reports pursuant to inspections made by assessee on behalf of OMIC. contract work was obtained by OMIC and inspection was being made in India by assessee i n relation to export goods sent to destinations like Kenya, Benin and Peru. assessee had brought on record details of certification job done by it for purposes of deduction under section 80-O. assessee had rendered its specialized job for destination countries like Kenya, Benin, Nigeria and Pakistan. service was rendered by assessee as per Import Regulations of Republic of Kenya and other countries. object of such service which was being rendered by assessee was that quality, quantity and price were checked and secured from point of export. There was no material on record that this job was being done by assessee at instance of Indian parties i.e., exporters. On other hand, sufficient evidences were brought on record by assessee to hold that services were being rendered by assessee from India to be used in foreign countries in respect of exports from India. Explanation appended to section 80-O of Act was inserted with object that even if assessee rendered its service sitting in India but to be used in foreign country, in that event also assessee is entitled to relief under section 80-O of Act. Considering facts involved in instance case and provisions of law, there was material available on record to hold that services were being rendered by assessee from India which were being used in foreign countries by respective importers and Government companies. Regarding genuineness of service and fact that assessee was receiving income i n convertible Foreign Exchange, no doubt had been raised by revenue. Considering above, provisions of section 80-O were to be applied. Accordingly, assessee's claim for deduction under section 80-O was to be allowed.' 16. In case of CIT v. Mittal Corpn.  272 ITR 87. Their Lordships of Delhi High Court observed as under: 'The first part of section refers to gross income of assessee. It includes any income by way of royalties, commission, payment received by assessee. second part indicates source, such as, from Government o f foreign State or foreign enterprises. third part has two sub-parts, one reads as - 'In consideration for use outside India of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process, or similar property right, or information concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill made available or provided or agreed to be made available, or provided to such Government or enterprise by assessee'. second sub-part reads as - 'In consideration of technical (or professional) services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India to such Government or enterprises by assessee'. fourth part is mode of receipt, such as, income received in convertible foreign exchange in India, or having been received in convertible foreign exchange outside India, etc. fifth and last part refers to deduction to be allowed under said section. section is required to be read as indicated hereinabove. two sub- parts of third part are alternatives as they are separated by word 'or' and cannot be read conjunctively. Thus, it cannot be said that assessee must provide 'technical services' even where it receives consideration for only providing commercial information. section is required to be interpreted accordingly. On facts, Tribunal clearly held that there is no dispute that it is commercial information which assessee provided to foreign buyers and in consideration thereof, assessee received commission which was in convertible foreign exchange. In view of this, claim made by assessee cannot be denied under section 80-O of Act.' [Emphasis supplied] 17. In case of CIT v. Inchcape India (P.) Ltd.  273 ITR 92 (Delhi) technical services were rendered from India and received by Government or foreign enterprises abroad, Hon'ble Court upheld allowance of deduction under section 80-O with following observations: 'In dying services division,the information supplied out of India was in respect of research, local suppliers for various products/goods, information on availability of products, information on market condition, etc. Tribunal has examined in detail about testing division services and pointed out that it was supplying information regarding testing, inspecting of fabrics/garments/consumable goods sourcing from India. Quality assurance service was required to be provided. It was required to work in field of textile testing, inspection of soft lines, electrical and electronics products according to existing standard of European and American markets. etc. Learned counsel for revenue submitted that in view of decision in Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT  145 ITR 673 (Bom.), assessee is not entitled to get benefit. In that case there was agreement for providing technical services. However, it is required to be noted that learned counsel for revenue admitted that this decision is rendered much before insertion of Explanation (iii ) to section 80- O of Act, which reads as under:- 'Services rendered or agreed to be rendered outside India shall include services rendered from India but shall not include services rendered in India.' Again our attention was drawn to circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes itself being Circular No. 700 dated March 23, 1995 [see  213 IT (St.) 78], specifically referring to section 80-O of Act. It is stated specially as under: 'The matter has been considered by Board. It is clarified that as long as technical and professional services are rendered from India and are received by foreign Government or enterprise outside India, deduction under section 80- O would be available to person rendering services even if foreign recipient of services utilizes benefit of such services in India.' Thus it is not open for revenue to argue against provision of law n d circular by which public at large is informed as to what is provision of law. Therefore, we would like to answer question in favour of assessee and against revenue. Ordered accordingly. appeal stands disposed of.' 18. Having regard to above decisions particularly of jurisdictional High Court in case of Mittal Corpn. (supra) and Inchcape India (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra), it is clear that fee received from foreign enterprises for supply of commercial information sent from India for use outside India is eligible for deduction under section 80-O. Services can be rendered from India and 'supply of information' would cover variety of cases as discussed above. All same if service starts from India and ends in India then assessee would not be entitled to deduction under section 80-O for such services. In case where composite fee is received both for services rendered in India and for information sent or services rendered from India, it is necessary to bifurcate amount received and allow deduction under section 80-O in respect of services rendered outside India. We shall elaborate on this while considering facts of this case. 19. Now reverting to facts of case, nature of services rendered by assessee to foreign client, as explained by learned representatives of both sides before us, is as follows. assessee is not buying agent simplicitor but scope and gamut of services rendered by it are substantially more than what are generally rendered by buying agent. assessee basically collects information regarding fashion design trend in India as well as abroad with particular reference to different fabrics available, suitability of said fabric to different weathers etc. This information is gathered through its knowledge and expertise in field and after analyzing same, input regarding designs and fabrics are given to foreign clients. Even samples are also got prepared as per design and fabric so suggested/recommended and same are sent abroad. Based on this information received from assessee as well as after inspection of samples prepared and sent by assessee, decision regarding purchase/procurement thereof from India is taken by foreign client in their respective country and accordingly, orders are directly placed by said client with concerned suppliers in India as suggested by assessee. All these services rendered by assessee up to this point culminating in orders placed by foreign client for procurement of goods directly with Indian supplier can be regarded as services rendered by assessee outside India for purpose of section 80-O in view of Explanation ( iii) to said section, according to which, even services rendered from India are considered as services rendered outside India. useful reference in this regard can be made to decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Inchcape India (P.) Ltd.  273 ITR 92 wherein information supplied on basis of testing and inspection of fabrics/garments/consumable goods to party situated outside India for sourcing said goods from India was held to be covered within provisions of section 80-O. It appears that basis for holding so is that even though testing and inspection of goods was done by assessee in India, services ultimately rendered by assessee were to supply information based on such testing and inspection and since this information was to be received by party situated abroad and same was to be utilized by said party only outside India for making decision, it was case of services rendered by assessee from India and such services were to be treated as services rendered outside India within meaning of Explanation ( iii) to section 80-O. logic thus is that even if services are rendered in India, ultimate utilization of such services would be by client outside India inasmuch as analysis of information received on basis of such services in India is done abroad and appropriate decision based on such analysis is also taken abroad. It is thus case of rendering services from India which ultimately are utilized abroad and thus are to be regarded as services rendered outside India. 20. position in respect of services rendered or to be rendered after order is placed by foreign client directly on Indian supplier, would normally be different and services rendered after placement of order in connection with execution of said order would be services rendered in India. For instance, if scope of work includes follow up of such orders to ensure quality control, delivery schedule etc., services rendered in connection with such activities like testing and inspection of samples, follow up of order to ensure timely supplies and even dispatch of said goods to foreign party would be normally services rendered in India and not services rendered from India because utilization of said services will effectively be in India for which no deduction is permissible. For this proposition, support can be derived from decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Searle (India) Ltd. v. CBDT  145 ITR 673 wherein American company was importing goods from India which were to conform to its quality specifications and assessee was required to carry out certain test in its laboratory in India and forward to American company result of those tests with certificate that each lot of goods to be imported from India conforms to specifications of American company. In these facts and circumstances, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that testing and certification were done by assessee in India and not outside India so as to attract provisions of section 80-O. Above decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court was rendered prior to insertion of Explanation (iii ) to section 80-O. 21. Shri Jain, learned Sr. D.R. is right in contending that all agreements 21. Shri Jain, learned Sr. D.R. is right in contending that all agreements with different buyers and details of services rendered by assessee should have been thoroughly examined to determine as to what portion of services were rendered to foreign buyers from India and what portion of services were rendered in India. On basis of decision of Supreme Court in case of Continental Construction Ltd. (supra), Shri Jain has also rightly contended that in case of composite services both inside and outside India, proportionate deduction has to be allowed to assessee under section 80-O of Income- tax Act. We further find that services 5 to 10 enumerated at pages 2 & 3 of this order are such which could be treated as services rendered in India. But here again there can be mixture of services in India and services out of India to foreign buyer. For example, if agent conveys to foreign buyers that goods required to be sent are in accordance with sample and, therefore, clearance for dispatch be given. This is service rendered from India on which decision is taken by foreign buyers. Likewise, certificate of agent that goods conform to specification and, therefore, payment should be remitted from foreign land is also service rendered from India. On basis of above information decision is taken by foreign buyers. Shri Vohra has shown us correspondence/telex messages between buyers and assessee relating to various purchases and supplies to be sent from India. These contain instructions of buyer relating to defects and alterations in goods to be prepared for export to foreign buyer. correspondence shows that decisions were taken by foreign buyer on basis of information supplied by assessee. Thus even in above services, some element of supply of commercial information which qualify for deduction is involved. present is case in which composite services were rendered and, therefore, CIT(A) was not justified in allowing 100% relief to assessee. portion of fees for services rendered in India was to be disallowed. 22. Shri Jain had vehemently contended that matter should be remanded to lower authorities for examining each of contract with foreign buyers and for determine of ratio in which deduction is to be allowed to assessee. We see from assessment record that assessee furnished whatever information was asked for by Assessing Officer. claim of assessee that all contracts are of similar nature, was never challenged. It is not case of Assessing Officer that assessee failed in his duty to supply information and on that ground relief was disallowed to assessee. learned Assessing Officer took view that assessee rendered managerial or commercial services and was not entitled to relief under section 80-O, view with which we are unable to agree. As already noted, fees received for commercial information supplied to foreign purchaser is entitled to deduction under section 80-O of Income-tax Act. Further in appellate proceedings correspondence and details filed by assessee were thoroughly examined and also put to Assessing Officer. No request was made by Assessing Officer to learned CIT (Appeals) that matter be remitted to him for further examination or verification. It is further fact that assessee has received composite fee for all services rendered to foreign buyers and bifurcated or separate figure of fees of each services rendered in India is not available. One has to make reasonable estimate of above amount on basis of material available on record having in mind finding of revenue authorities. In these circumstances, we are of view that no useful purpose would be served in giving second inning to revenue. Having regard to documents and relevant material available on record, and above discussion, we are of view that interest of justice would be met if 30% of fees received by assessee is taken towards services rendered in India and 70% of fees received by assessee is taken to be qualified for deduction under section 80-O of Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we direct Assessing Officer to recompute deduction having in mind our directions above. 23. In result, appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. *** ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX v. LI & FUNG INDIA (P) LTD.