1989 (3) TMI 28

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... this court : "(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had ignored relevant materials and relied on irrelevant and partly irrelevant materials to come to the finding that a sum of Rs. 38,550 and not Rs. 48,000 was paid or payable to the assessee as commission by the American Refrigeration Co. Ltd., and whether such finding of the Tribunal was unreasonable or p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ected itself in law in holding that the term 'remuneration' appearing in clause 5 of the said agreement would include perquisites and benefits mentioned in sub-clauses (ii) to (vi) of clause 4 of the said agreement ?" The assessment year involved in this reference is the assessment year 1967-68 for which the corresponding accounting period is the financial year ending on March 31, 1967. The as .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aw Board only provided for a maximum limit but it did not oblige the employer to pay the maximum remuneration approved by the Company Law Board. The employer and the employee had interpreted the agreement and the approval of the Company Law Board as placing the limit of Rs. 1,20,000 on the total remuneration. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal held that the "Revenue authorities were not just .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X