9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (10) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Tribunal even in the absence of any material that could prove the rendering of services by such company to the assessee? 3. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in allowing the commission of Rs. 46,65,600 paid by the assessee to APVN without discharging the onus of proving that it was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business? 4. Whether the Tribunal was correct in law in ignoring the fact that the claim for payments of commission was an arranged affair by the assessee to reduce his tax liability? 5. Whether the order of the Tribunal is correct on facts and not perverse, in allowing the claim of commission by ignoring certain relevant facts, such as- (a) The AO 's findings after collecting necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there was a regular memorandum of understanding reached by the assessee with the GFC specifying the terms of understanding and commission was paid in accordance with these terms, prevailed with the Tribunal and was upheld. The Tribunal recorded the finding of fact that the assessee received repeated orders for supply of detergent for which he earned commission but no amount was paid to GFC on that account. The amount was paid by the assessee only in respect of a contract for 6000 mt. (and not in respect of every contract) for supply of detergent goods or commodities to USSR or any other contract though the assessee was receiving repeated orders. Both were free to compete with each other in the manner best suited to them. The Tribunal ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nate to the quantum of commission earned by the assessee and that APVN had not filed any returns of its own. For these four reasons, the claim was rejected. The rejection was upheld by the CIT(A). 4. However, the Tribunal reversed the findings of the AO and the CIT(A) by passing a detailed order. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal, specially para 8 thereof, reveals a few findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. There had been exchange of regular correspondence between the assessee and APVN showing the role played by APVN in helping the assessee securing the order. APVN had confirmed the receipt of commission in part and then reminded the assessee for releasing the balance commission. The payments made by the assessee to APVN were a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he domain of facts; whether such an expenditure is allowable as a deduction or not and how the nature of such expenditure is to be classified under the relevant legal provision is a question of law. The question as proposed by the Revenue as to the payment of Rs. 46,65,600 to APVN does not arise as question of law in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. In our opinion, no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had rightly opined while rejecting the petitioner's application under s. 256(1) of the Act that the questions raised by the Revenue were merely of fact and hence were not referable to the High Court. The application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act is, therefore, rejecte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
