1987 (3) TMI 91 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determination of whether the payments made to agents are eligible for rebate under section 35B.
3. Assessment of whether the agents were acting on behalf of the assessee or as principals in the transactions.
4. Evaluation of the Tribunal's understanding of the legal significance of the facts presented in the case.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by T. KOCHU THOMMEN J. of the High Court of Kerala pertains to two Income Tax References (ITRs) involving the interpretation and application of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The central issue in both cases is whether the assessee is entitled to a weighted deduction for the agency commission paid to agents outside India for promoting sales. The provision allows for deduction of expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively on maintaining a branch, office, or agency outside India for the promotion of sales. The court emphasized that to qualify for the deduction, it must be established that the agents promoted the assessee's sales abroad. The Tribunal accepted that the recipients of the commission acted as agents of the assessee.

In determining the eligibility for rebate under section 35B, the court highlighted the distinction between payment to an agent and a trade discount. If the recipient of the payment is the principal buyer of goods, the payment is considered a trade discount and not commission. The crucial factor is whether the recipient acted solely as the assessee's agent or as a principal or agent of foreign buyers. If the payment was for canvassing the assessee's business abroad, it qualifies as an agency fee or commission eligible for deduction under section 35B.

The court noted that the Tribunal failed to grasp the legal significance of the facts presented and did not apply the correct legal principles. Therefore, the court declined to answer the questions raised in both cases and directed a fresh consideration based on the relevant facts and legal principles. The parties were instructed to bear their respective costs, and a copy of the judgment was to be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench for further action.