9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (9) TMI 8X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dence to support the fact that M/s. Y.S.R. Krishna Rao, A. L. Narasimha Rao and Y. Joga Rao also rendered services to the assessee-company ? " The income-tax assessments involved are for the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74. The assessee is a private limited company. The Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation has given assistance to the assessee in the manufacture of sodium metal by subscribing to 50% of the equity capital. Initially, the promoters of the assessee-company were: (1) Y. V. S. S. Murthy, (2) Smt. Y. Annapurnamma, (3) Smt. Y. V. Lalitha Devi, and (4) Dr. Y. B. V. Janardhana Rao. The aforementioned four persons were signatories to the memorandum and articles of association. After the assessee-company was establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Narasimha Rao and Y. Joga Rao. He upheld the disallowance of commission claimed to have been paid to Smt. Y. Annapurnamma, Smt. Y. V. Lalitha Devi, Dr. Y. B. V. Janardhana Rao and Smt. A. Chellayamma. Aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the Revenue as well as the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Revenue was aggrieved against the allowance of commission to Y. V. S. S. Murthy, Y. S. R. Krishna Rao, A. L. Narasimha Rao and Y. Joga Rao, while the assessee reiterated its claim for payment of commission to Smt. Y. Annapurnamma, Smt. Y. V. Lalitha Devi, Dr. Y. B. Janardhana Rao and Smt. A. Chellayamma. After considering the rival claims, the Tribunal upheld the allowance of commission only to Y. V. S. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the aforementioned persons and, therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim for payment of commission. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue, Sri M. Suryanarayana Murthy, supported the order of the Tribunal and reiterated the plea that the finding of the Tribunal that no services were rendered by the aforementioned persons to the assessee, being essentially a finding of fact, this court ought not to interfere with that finding. Having heard learned counsel for both sides, we think it unnecessary to enter into the controversy whether the second batch of four shareholders came within the expression " promoters " for purposes of the resolution dated June 18, 1969. The facts in this case would show that the paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. While we find that the cases referred to by the Tribunal had a bearing upon the provisions of section 40(c), there is no specific reference to the aforementioned section while considering the question relating to the allowability of commission. Our attention has been invited by learned counsel to the evidence placed before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner concerning the services rendered by Sri Y. S. R. Krishna Rao, Sri A.L. Narasimha Rao and Sri Y. joga Rao. This evidence is catalogued at pages 149 to 153 of the record of this court. The grievance of learned counsel for the assessee is that this evidence, which was there before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, entirely, escaped the notice of the Tribunal and there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
