But the Tribunal only referred the following question Whether the assessee companypany held an office or employment of profit within the meaning of s. 4 3 vi of the Indian Income tax Act?
The Commissioner then moved the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the following question to the High Court of Judicature at Bombay Whether on the facts of the case, a portion viz.
The application preferred by the Commissioner to the High Court for calling upon the tribunal to submit a statement on the question originally submitted was rejected, and the High Court answered the question referred by the Tribunal in the affirmative, observing that it had been companyclusively determined by their earlier decision in Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bombay Mofussil 1 which arose out of a proceeding for assessment to tax of the income of the original selling agent under the same agency agreement.
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, however, upheld the companytention of the Company that in the companyputation of the income of the Company, the 5 companymission was wholly exempt by virtue of S. 4 3 vi of the Income tax Act, 1922.
5 of the selling agency companymission of 12 1/2 received by the assessee companypany from M s Ciba Ltd. in the companyrse of carrying on the selling agency business is exempt from tax under s. 413 vi of the Act?
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 6, 9, 1963 of the Gujarat High Court in Income tax Reference No.
Sen, A. N. Kirpal, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.
N. Shroff, for the respondent.
9 of 1963.
This Court set aside the order passed by the High Court dismissing the application of the Commissioner and without expressing any opinion on the companyrectness or otherwise of the answer recorded by the High Court on the question referred by the Tribunal, remanded the case to the High Court with a direction that the Tribunal be called upon to state a case on the question raised in the application of the Commis sioner.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J.By an agreement dated October 29, 1928 Ciba India Ltd. hereinafter called the principals appointed one Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla selling agent for the District of Ahmedabad in respect of certain kinds of dyes and dye stuffs, and agreed to pay him companymission at the rate of 12 1/2 on sales by him of dyes and dye stuffs of the principals.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The terms relating to companymission were modified by agreement dated August 20, 1935 and out of the companymission agreed to be paid, 71 was to be treated as the selling companymission and 5 was to be treated as companypensation in lieu of the companytingency expenses which the selling agent had to meet, such as companymission to Dyeing Masters, agents etc The rights of the selling agent were assigned with the companysent of the principals to the respondent Company with effect from October 27, 1947.
The companymission was to include all charges in companynection with the upkeep of offices and godown, turnover rebates and companytingency expenses etc.
58,025/ being the difference between Rs.
Against the order passed by the High Court recording an answer in the affirmative on the question referred by the Tribunal and against the order dismissing the numberice of motion, the Commissioner appealed to this Court.
1,32,512/ spent by the Company for meeting the charges which the selling agent was to meet.
2162 of 1966.
In assessing the income of the Company for the assessment year 1949 50, the Income tax Officer included in the taxable income Rs.
1,90,538/ received by the Company as 5 companymission and Rs.
