9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves two main issues: 1. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,01,779 was an admissible business expense? 2. Whether the sum of Rs. 1,01,779 constituted income in the hands of the assessee? Issue 1: Admissible Business Expense The assessee had a sole selling agency agreement with a manufacturer of meters. Dispute arose when the assessee sold meters at prices higher than those fixed by the company. The company claimed the benefit of the higher prices should have been passed on to them. After negotiations, the dispute was settled, and the assessee accepted two debit notes totaling Rs. 1,01,779. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) and the Appellate Authority Commission (AAC) did not consider this amount genuine. However, the Tribunal found it to be a genuine transaction and not the income of the assessee. The High Court concurred, stating that the finding was a question of fact, not law. The Court emphasized that under the agreement, the only income the assessee could derive was the 10% commission, and any excess price charged had to be accounted for to the company, as evidenced by the debit notes. Issue 2: Income in the Hands of the Assessee The Revenue contended that the higher price received by the assessee should be considered income. However, the Court disagreed, stating that as per the agreement, the assessee was entitled to a 10% commission on the sale price fixed by the company. Any excess price charged had to be given to the company and could not be regarded as the income of the assessee. The Court clarified that all receipts would not be income, and in this case, the income was the commission earned by the assessee. The Court upheld the genuineness of the transaction of the two debit notes and answered both questions in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the receipts could not be equated with income. The judgment was delivered by Judges Prakash Narain and S. S. Chadha of the Delhi High Court.
|
