9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owing substantial question of law: Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant was entitled to only 5% of the receipts of the appellant and not 5% of the gross advertising bills raised? 2. Facts leading to filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the assessee is a company incorporated on 29th April 1992. The assessee entered into an agreement dated 27th July 1992 (said agreement) with Prime Time Media Services Pvt. Ltd. Under clause-3 of the said agreement, the assessee was required to pay Prime Time Media Services Pvt. 5% of the total receipts from advertising. The assessee filed return of income for the Assessment Year ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es Pvt. Ltd. and computed the amount at Rs. 8,81,611/- (Rupees eight lac eighty-one thousand six hundred eleven only) being 15% of the sum of Rs. 58,77,412/- (Rupees fifty-eight lac seventy-seven thousand four hundred twelve only). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted the disallowance to Rs. 10,61,063/- (Rupees ten lac sixty-one thousand sixty-three only) as against Rs. 19,42,641/- (Rupees nineteen lac forty-two thousand six hundred forty-one only) and granted a relief to the extent of Rs. 8,81,611/- (Rupees eight lac eighty-one thousand six hundred eleven only). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal preferred by the assessee by order dated 14th December 1995. 5. The assessee, thereupon, preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thirty thousand eight hundred eighty only) and the same ought to have been taken into account by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on decisions of the Supreme Court in COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY VS. WALCHAND & CO. (PVT) LTD., BOMBAY 1967 SCC OnLine SC 119 and a division bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in INGERSOLL-RAND (INDIA) LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER (2020) 427 ITR 158 (Karn). 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revenue has contended that the assessee himself has disclosed the total income from advertising at Rs. 63,43,480/- (Rupees sixty-three lac forty-three thousand four h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the business of the assessee and to disallow it. It was further held that it is not the function of the Tribunal to determine the remuneration, which in their view, should be paid to an employee of the assessee. 9. The scope of appeal under Section 260A of the 1961 Act is well settled. This Court, in an appeal under Section 260A, can interfere with the findings of fact only if when the same is shown to be perverse [See : SYEDA RAHIMUNNISA VS. MALAN BI BY L.RS. AND ORS. (2016) 10 SCC 315 and PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BANGALORE & ORS VS. SOFTBRANDS INDIA P.LTD. (2018) 406 ITR 513. 10. In the backdrop of the aforementioned well settled legal principles, we may advert to the facts of the case in hand. Clause-3 of the agreement d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
