9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Assessment of commission payment to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation for the assessment year 1966-67. - Disallowance of payment made to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation for previous assessment years. - Consideration of fresh evidence by the Commissioner of Income-tax. - Tribunal's observation on evidence presented by the assessee. - Legal principles regarding the rendering of services and approval of the Company Law Board. - Tribunal's decision based on evidence and self-contained assessment years. Analysis: The petitioner sought direction for the Tribunal to refer a question regarding the correctness of allowing the assessee's claim of commission payment to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation for the assessment year 1966-67. Previous disallowances of payments to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66 were upheld by the Tribunal. The Commissioner of Income-tax, considering fresh evidence, felt bound by the Tribunal's earlier decision but took into account the new evidence produced by the assessee for the current assessment year. The Tribunal, in its observation, noted that penalty proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65 revealed no penalty was leviable as payments to M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation were made by cheques, and evidence showed services were rendered. The Tribunal considered various documents provided by the assessee, such as resolutions, letters, invoices, and accounts, to support the claim of services rendered by M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that disallowances were unwarranted and allowed the claims for commission payments. The petitioner cited legal precedents to argue that the mere existence of an agreement does not prove the rendering of services. However, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the evidence presented, including approvals from the Company Law Board, sales documents, and bills, which supported the conclusion that services were indeed rendered by M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation. The Court found no material evidence ignored by the Tribunal and held that each assessment year is self-contained. In conclusion, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that no question of law arose based on the Tribunal's findings of fact supported by the evidence presented for the assessment year 1966-67. The judgment highlighted the importance of evidence, approval from regulatory bodies, and self-contained assessment years in determining the correctness of commission payments and services rendered by M/s. Standard Electrode Corporation.
|
