The said order of the Assessing Officer was companyfirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals by order dated 29.10.1993.
Some of the questions discarded by the High Court were actually more proximate to the question of perversity of the findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal, than the questions retained.
Following the aforesaid judgment of the Kerala High Court, the Karnataka High Court had decided a similar question arising in Income Tax Appeal No.
14,36,200/ A reading of the questions initially framed and subsequently reframed show that what was done by the High Court is to retain three out of twelve questions, as initially framed, while discarding the rest.
The assessee had moved the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench against the aforesaid orders.
7,75,602/ was wholly and exclusively for the assessees business?
ii Should number the Tribunal have disallowed the entire claim for Rs.
12 of 1999, it will be necessary first to deal with the issues arising in Civil Appeal No.
12 of 1999 and Income Tax Appeal Nos.
42, 44, 46 and 47 of 2001, in a like manner i.e. against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
7,75,602/ ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the Tribunal have any materials to show that the above expenditure of Rs.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in allowing the expenditure of Rs.22,72,192/ by and deleting the addition of Rs.22,72,192/ ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee discharge the burden of proof that lay on it in support of the claim for Rs.7,75,602/ ?
Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the High Court of Karnataka which pertains to different assessment years, Civil Appeal No.
The true effect of the Government Circulars along with the agreements between the assessee and the companymission agents and the details of payments made by the assessee to the companymission agents as well as the affidavits filed by the husbands of the partners of M s. R.J. Associates were companysidered by the High Court.
In view of the fact that the decision of the Karnataka High Court in I.T.A. No.
7,75,602/ by and deleting the addition of Rs.
Though one item of claim for deduction pertained to the companyporate management charges paid by the assessee to U.B. Limited and an issue pertaining to the said claim was one of the twelve questions initially framed in the Reference, in the questions reframed by the High Court, the said question does number find any mention.
And on that ground they sought deduction under Section 37 of the Act.
Certain States like Kerala and Tamil Nadu had established marketing companyporations which were the exclusive wholesalers of alcoholic beverages for the companycerned State whereby all manufacturers had to companypulsorily sell their products to the State Corporations which, in turn, would sell the liquor so purchased, to the retailers.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that companysidering the need for such services and the opportunity companyt of having a regular marketing force, the payment to Golden Enterprises was only for business purposes and was in business interest and are number above findings wrong, unreasonable, unsupported by materials and based on surmise and companyjectures?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in holding that the engagement of Golden Enterprises for carrying out certain support services was in the business interest and is number the above finding also based on surmised and companyjectures like that two sales officers of UB Group stationed at Madras did number do or at any rate companyld number have done any sub line service at the unit level wrong, unreasonable and unsupported by materials?
3214 of 2011 and Special Leave Petition C No.
3214 of 2011 and Special Leave Petition C No.
1569 of 2007 The claim made by the assessee in the facts numbered above was disallowed by the Assessing Officer by order dated 29.01.1993.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case is the increase in sales numbered in paragraph 10 page 18 of the order of the Tribunal based on the increase in the quantum or increases in price and if the increase in sales is based on an increase in price is number the same an irrelevant companysideration and the order vitiated?
There were certain Government Circulars which regulated, if number prohibited, liaisoning with the government companyporations by the manufacturers for the purpose of obtaining supply orders.
12 of 1999 had followed the decision of the Kerala High Court impugned in Civil Appeal No.
Succinctly, the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and sale of beer and other alcoholic beverages.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the Tribunal have any materials to show that the above expenditure of Rs.
1569 of 2007 and depending on the decision therein the remaining appeals will have to be accordingly answered.
1569 of 2007 and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in the subsequent appeals before it impugned in Civil Appeal No.
Be that as it may, the High Court on the reasons recorded in its order dated 31.03.2005 thought it proper to reverse the findings and companyclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, did the assessee discharge the burden of proof that lay on it in support of claim for Rs.
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, should number the Tribunal have companysidered the companytention of the Revenue that ultimately Golden Enterprises has in turn appointed one Abhinava Agencies for doing such work and therefore Golden Enterprises did number have the necessary infrastructure to do the services in its companyrect prospective without side treching the issue by observing what happened between Golden Enterprises and Abhinava Agencies is number of the companycern of the assesseeand is number the above finding wrong and lacks prospective when the case behind entrustment with Golden Enterprises was for lack of infrastructure with the assessee?
22,72,192/ ?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and reason behind entrustment by the assessee with Golden Enterprises being for lack of infrastructure with the assessee, will such an assessee entrust the job to the one who lacks infrastructure and to the one who in turn entrust to another agency and are number the order and the findings, without adverting to the above aspects, wrong and hence vitiated?
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. Civil Appeal No.
Civil Appeal No.
22,72,192/ was wholly and exclusively for the assessees business?
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, The assessee is entitled to claim any deduction under the head companyporate and management charges?
1569 of 2007 is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2005 of the High Court of Kerala by which in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 256 2 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it then existed hereinafter for short the Act the questions reframed by the High Court have been answered against the appellant assessee and in favour of the revenue.
10080 of 2014 have been filed by the assessee.
10080 of 2014 essentially follows the decision rendered in I.T.A. No.
The question decided by the High Court and relevant to the present appeal relates to the entitlement of the assessee to the benefit of disallowance of companymission purportedly paid by the assessee to its companymission agents for procurement of order for supply of liquor.
It is pleaded by the appellants that manufacturers of beverages companytaining alcohol have to engage services of agents who would companyordinate with the retailers and State Corporations to ensure companytinuous flow supply of goods to the ultimate companysumers.
