1989 (3) TMI 28 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues involved:
The Tribunal's findings under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the payment of commission, interpretation of the agreement dated December 20, 1965, and the inclusion of perquisites and benefits in the term 'remuneration'.

Payment of Commission:
The Tribunal was questioned on whether it erred in determining the commission amount paid to the assessee by the American Refrigeration Co. Ltd. The Tribunal's finding that Rs. 38,550 and not Rs. 48,000 was paid as commission was upheld, emphasizing that the Tribunal had considered relevant materials and the interpretation of the agreement between the parties.

Interpretation of Agreement:
The dispute revolved around the correct interpretation of the agreement dated December 20, 1965, and the total remuneration payable to the assessee. The Tribunal's decision that the sum payable amounted to Rs. 1,10,550 (salary of Rs. 72,000 and commission of Rs. 38,550) was deemed reasonable based on admissible evidence and the terms of the agreement.

Inclusion of Perquisites:
The Tribunal was questioned on whether it misdirected itself in law by including perquisites and benefits in the term 'remuneration' as per the agreement. The Tribunal's interpretation was upheld, stating that the Company Law Board's approval set a maximum limit on total remuneration but did not exclude the value of benefits, leading to a favorable decision for the assessee.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta addressed issues related to the Tribunal's findings under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involved disputes over commission payment, agreement interpretation, and the inclusion of perquisites in the term 'remuneration'. The Tribunal's decisions were upheld, emphasizing the consideration of relevant materials and the agreement terms. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee on all questions referred, highlighting the importance of interpreting agreements as understood by the parties involved. The judgment favored the assessee on the payment of commission, interpretation of the agreement, and the inclusion of perquisites in the total remuneration.