Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (8) TMI 57

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... red wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on the material on record, the Tribunal could have legally come to conclusion that the amount of Rs. 55,322 paid as commission to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation did not represent an expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose, of business?" Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee made a claim for deduction of Rs. 55,322 stated to have been paid as commission to one M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation ( hereinafter referred to as the " said Corporation "). This payment was alleged to have been made on account of the services stated to have been rendered by the said Corporation as a sole s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uch further evidence as it desired in support of its claim. The Income-tax Officer brought to the notice of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner certain facts and, on the basis thereof and also after taking into consideration the contentions of the assessee, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner by recording the following finding : " (i) There was no evidence to show that the corporation rendered any service so as to describe the commission payment as one made on grounds of commercial expediency. (ii) When the assessee started its manufacturing operations it appointed certain agents including Modi Agency. On its appointment the corporation came to have its head office at Delhi. According to the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 7 required the assessee to draw up an agreement to be entered into with the corporation on terms which were substantially different and send it for the approval of the Board. Instead of having done this, the corporation gave up the agency ( according to the assessee ) from August, 1967 about one year before the term was due to expire. It could hence be said that the Company Law Board did not approve of the agreement. " In the second appeal before the Tribunal, the contention of the assessee was reagitated. The Tribunal, however, came to the conclusion that : "Material on record does not show that the Corporation did render services in fact to the assessee." This conclusion was based on the following observations of the Tribunal: " E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... duct put on the market for the first time, and did not have the physical resources necessary to have carried out its duties in the manner in which they were claimed to have been done. This is, therefore, a case where the expenditure in question has not been proved by the assessee to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. " The assessee filed an application under section 256(1) of the Act. The same was, however, dismissed. It is on the application filed under section 256(2) of the Act that the aforesaid two questions of law were referred. Question No.1 which has been referred is only concerned with the question as to whether there was any evidence before the Tribunal to arrive at the conclusion which it di .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... his is a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record. This finding of fact cannot be interfered with in exercise of our jurisdiction which is a very limited one. It was contended by learned counsel for the assessee that, in the subsequent years, evidence was produced which indicated that services had been rendered by the Corporation. Each year is a self-contained year and, for the assessment year 1964-65, with which we are concerned in this case, there was no evidence other than that which was considered by the Department and the Tribunal. On this evidence a conclusion of fact has been arrived at and the said finding cannot be said to be, not based on any evidence. Question No. 2 is also answered in the affirmative a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates