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

1990 (8) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 claimed as deduction for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72, respectively, were not commission paid within the meaning of section 133(4) of the Income-tax Act and, consequently, the assessee was under no obligation to file the details of those payments ? (ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in stating that the Tribunal was satisfied that the payments of Rs. 96,807 and Rs. 78,805, respectively, for the assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 were made wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business when similar payments in the assessee's case for earlier years were disallowed by the Tribunal ? (iii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was righ .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ground. In the circumstances, so far as the question of disallowance is concerned, it is really not relevant whether the payments herein were commission payments so that section 133(4) was applicable or whether the payments were of some other nature. Non-furnishing of information under section 133(4) can, at its worst, be circumstance in the matter of considering the question of allowability of the claim for deduction. Therefore, the first question need not be answered. As regards the second question, Shri Jetley, learned counsel for the Department, stated that this question is covered by our court's decision in the assessee's own case reported in Goodlas Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT [1982] 137 ITR 58. Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unal, it appears, had to consider some new facts and aspects of the matter. It found that the assessee was carrying on business in the line in which payments were made to the employees of the customers to keep them on the right side and to ensure the flow of orders, quick payment and smooth running of business in all respects, including quick payment of bills. The Tribunal also found that the assessee was maintaining proper accounts and records regarding these payments in that the payments were made under the instructions and directions of the top executives of the company and were approved by the board of directors at the end of every month. According to the Tribunal, the facts that the assessee was a public limited company, that the accou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... unless such a finding is perverse or is such that no reasonable person can come to such a finding. This will be so even when the High Court feels that it would have come to a different conclusion, if it was sitting in appeal. In that sense, when the High Court declines to interfere with a finding of fact given by the Tribunal in an earlier year, it may not mean that the High Court had approved of such a finding. This, however, does not mean that subsequent Bench of the Tribunal should come to a conclusion totally contradictory to the conclusion reached by the earlier Bench of the Tribunal in the same case for an earlier year on a similar set of facts. Such a thing may not be in the larger public interest as it is likely to shake the confide .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ispute that the amount lying to the credit of the assessee with the Chartered Bank, Karachi., represented sale proceeds of the assessee's stock-in-trade and had become bad. The only question that can possibly arise for consideration is whether the said amount became bad in the year under appeal or in some other earlier year. In our view, when two facts are proved, namely, that the debt is a trade debt and that it has become bad, the court should not interfere with the decision of the assessee in writing off the amount in a particular year unless there is anything patently wrong with the assessee's decision. Accordingly, we answer the third question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. - - TaxTM .....

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