After having assessed the said amount in the hands of the employer for the assessment year 1949 50, the department sought to assess the said income over again in the hands of the assessee as companymission received by him from his employer.
8 dated March 24, 1928.
878F dated March 21, 1922, as amended by Notification No.
On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal, Bombay held that the companyditions laid down by the said numberification had been fulfilled and that the assessee was entitiled to the exemption claimed by him.
8 dated March 24, 1928 ?
Hence, the present appeal.
On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner came to the same companyclusion as the Income tax Officer.
2,45,557 the companymission paid by him to the respondent in terms of the agreement, from his taxable in companye.
878F dated March 21,1922, as amended by Notification No.
2,45,557 was exempt in the hands of the assessee by virtue of the Notification No.
The claim was rejected.
The High Court agreed with the Appellate Tribunal and answered the question in the affirmative.
For the assessment year 1949 50 Gallini claimed a deduction of Rs.
The assessee claimed exemption on the basis of the Notification No.
The following question was referred to the High Court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the companymission of Rs.
At the instance of the revenue, the aforesaid question was referred to the High Court for its opinion.
But the Income tax Officer a rejected the claim on the ground that the payment of companymission is but a way to reduce his income and his tax liability.
The facts that led up to the reference may be briefly stated One S. P. Gallini was dosing business in art silk in the name and style of Rayon Yarns Import Company.
Under an agreement dated May 30, 1948, he appointed E. Francescanto, the respondent, as his manager.
