TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 1014X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT, as mentioned above, which was accepted by the ITAT. Referring to agreement entered into between the assessee and Mr. Jack Barouk it is in the form of communication dated 24th October, 1977 addressed by Mr. Jack Barouk to the assessee stating therein the terms and conditions on which two parties agreed to work together. In this communication, Mr. Jack Barouk agreed to keep the goods of the assessee in his godown, show the said products to the visiting customers personally and secure orders from the territories mentioned therein namely, Benelux and France. This communication further states that he will be given 5% commission on all goods shipped by the assessee to the aforesaid territories on the orders procured by the said Mr. J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt : Mr. Y.P. Adhyaru,Sr. Adv. Ms. Gargi Khanna, Adv. Ms. Purnima Bhat Kak, Adv. Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Adv ORDER The question that needs to be decided in the present case is as to whether the appellant/assessee herein was entitled to weighted deduction in terms of the provision of Section 35B(1)(b) (iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was the provision in force during the relevant period, i.e. Assessment Year 1983-84. In the return filed by the assessee for that year, it had stated that a sum of ₹ 4,60,433/- was paid by the assessee to one Mr. Jack Barouk of Brussels who was appointed by the assessee as its commercial agent in the said country for the sale of the assessee's goods. The aforesaid provision, i.e. Section 35B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alify for weighted deduction in case the expenditure is incurred wholly and exclusively on maintenance outside India of a branch, office or agent for the promotion of the sale outside India of such goods, services or facilities. What is not in dispute is that the expenditure was in fact incurred. It was also incurred wholly and exclusively outside India as the payment was made to Mr. Jack Barouk a resident of Brussels. It is also not in dispute that this payment was made against some sales of carpets belonging to the assessee, made by the said Mr. Jack Barouk. The only dispute is as to whether he could be treated as agent of the assessee. The appellant had filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer refusing to give benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm of communication dated 24th October, 1977 addressed by Mr. Jack Barouk to the assessee stating therein the terms and conditions on which two parties agreed to work together. In this communication, Mr. Jack Barouk agreed to keep the goods of the assessee in his godown, show the said products to the visiting customers personally and secure orders from the territories mentioned therein namely, Benelux and France. This communication further states that he will be given 5% commission on all goods shipped by the assessee to the aforesaid territories on the orders procured by the said Mr. Jack Barouk. The assesseee had accepted and agreed on the aforesaid terms contained in the said communication and there is a specific endorsement to this eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
