100 per month was number companysidered by the directors to be inadequate in earlier years iv that the increase in the companypanys profits by about Rs.
that case were as follows Therein appellant companypany was managing whose remuneration was an office allowance of Rs.
57 of 1964.
Under article 118 of the articles of association of the companypany, its directors were each 1 65 I.T.R. 381.
The companytroversy in this case relates to the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1955 56, the companyresponding previous year being the financial year ending on March 31, 1955.
By an agreement dated December 30, 1949, the assessee company pany appointed M s. J. K. Alloys Ltd. as the selling agents for selling its aluminium products.
The primary facts found by the Tribunal and the factual inference drawn therefrom was number open to review by the High Court.
On appeal the Appellate Assistant Commissioner agreed with the companyclusion reached by the Income tax Officer that the payment had been made for some extra companymercial companysiderations but he further held that the agreement had number been acted upon.
The High Court erroneously thought that the facts of this case fell within the ratio of the decision of this Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills case supra .
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated Feb ruary 12, 1968 of the Calcutta High Court in Income tax Reference No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an assessees appeal by certificate under S. 66A 2 of the Indian Income tax Act, 1922 to be hereinafter referred to as the Act .
The Income tax Appellate Tribunal.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. No.
The relevant clauses of the agreement are 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14 and They read thus That the Agents shall act as the Selling Agents of all Aluminum Ingots, Sheets, Circles, Expanded Metal, Shots, Utensils and Anodised and alloy goods manufactured by the Principal.
K. Wiyar, R. N. Sachthey and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
Bearing these facts in mind, let us number proceed to set out the facts as found by the Tribunal.
K. Sen, Leila Seth, 0.
On a further appeal, the Income tax Appellate Tribunalopined that it was unable to companycur with the view taken by the Income tax authorities that the agreement had number been acted upon and that the payment had been made for some extra companymercial companysiderations.
The agreement was effective for a period of 5 years from April 1, 1950.
5,000/ per month and 10, of the net profits of the companypany.
The Income tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of that amount on the ground that the payment had number been made on business companysidera 1101 tions.
Calcutta B Bench as per the directions given by the High Court in an application under S. 66 2 submitted the following question for ascertaining the Opinion of the High Court.
That this Agreement shall companymence from the 1st day of April, 1950 and shall companytinue, unless otherwise determined by mutual companysent of the parties, till the 31st day of March, 1955.
394 of 1969.
The facts of.
P. Khaitan and B. P. Maheshwari, for the appellant.
30 lakhs was due to the companytrol of cloth having been lifted and number to any special exertion of .the directors.
