HARRISONS MALAYALAM LTD,WILLINGDON vs. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,EKM
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the order of the ITAT. The memorandum of appeal, which framed the questions as above, did not disclose any substantial question of law for consideration under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed at the admission stage. The specific reasoning for the ITAT's disallowance of the commission is not detailed in this High Court judgment, as the High Court found no substantial question of law to examine. The operative direction is the dismissal of the appeal.
What were the facts?
The assessee, Harrisons Malayalam Ltd., is appealing an order dated January 20, 2010, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Cochin Bench. The appeal concerns assessment years not explicitly stated. The assessee supplied 100 Metric Tonnes of Black Tea to Iraq under the UN-monitored 'Oil for Food Programme'. The assessee claimed deductions for selling commission paid in relation to this transaction. These claims were rejected by the Assessing Authority, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and subsequently by the ITAT. The ITAT disposed of the appeal ex parte as the assessee's representative did not appear for the hearing.
What were the issues?
1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in disallowing the commission paid by the appellant? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act). 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that it is not an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that the ITAT was unjustified in disallowing the commission paid and in concluding that it was not an allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue before the High Court. The ITAT disposed of the appeal ex parte.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
JUDGMENT J.Chelameswar, C.J. This is an appeal filed by the assessee aggrieved by the order dated 20th January, 2010 in I.T.A.No.703(Coch)/2008 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
The assessee supplied 100 Metric Tonnes of Black Tea to Iraq. We must state here that whether the purchaser is Government of Iraq or a private party is not clear from the record. The transaction is descried as export to Iraq in the assessment order. It appears that the said export was made under a scheme known as “Oil for Food Programme” monitored by the United Nations. We are also aware of neither the details of the scheme nor what is meant by the expression 'monitored'. Be that as it may, in the process of the above mentioned supply, the appellant claimed certain deductions from the total income of the appellant on the ground that the deductions so claimed represent the selling commission.
The claim of the appellant was rejected by all the successive authorities under the Income Tax Act, i.e. the Assessing Authority, the first Appellate Authority - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
It can be seen from the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that the appellant did not pursue the matter before the Tribunal. In paragraph 2 of the order it is stated as follows:
“2. In spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, particularly this hearing was given at the request of the Id. authorized representative in the previous hearing, i.e. on 12-11-2009. Hence, we proceed to dispose of the appeal ex parte after hearing Shri.T.J.Vincent, Id. DR.”
Even otherwise, the memorandum of appeal does not disclose any substantial question of law which falls for consideration of this Court in exercise of our juri iction under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act. The memorandum of appeal states in this regard as follows: “The following substantial questions of law arise for decisions of this Honourable Court: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in disallowing the commission paid by the appellant? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal justified in coming to the conclusion that it is not an - 3 - allowable expenditure under Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act?”
It is obvious from a reading of the above that no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed at the admission stage. J.Chelameswar,
Chief Justice
P.R.Ramachandra Menon,
Judge vns
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Sanjay Maheshwari vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.Delhi · 14 Oct 2026
- Iyyanan Eswaran vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)Madras · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Dc Security Services vs. Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
- M/S Shreekanth Enterprises vs. Joint Commissioner AppealsUttarakhand · 14 Oct 2026
