COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. RAMPRASAD INVESTMENTS & TRADERS PVT. LTD.

ITA/178/1998HC GujaratGJHC24024216199828 September 1998Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The Revenue applied to the High Court under Section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to state a case on certain questions of law. The ITAT had previously rejected the Revenue's application under Section 256(1) to refer these questions to the High Court. The dispute involved the deletion of an addition of Rs. 20,92,060 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) as alleged commission payment. The AO had disallowed the entire amount, and the CIT(Appeals) had maintained this disallowance. The ITAT, however, deleted the addition after appreciating the material on record.

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court rejected the Revenue's application. The Court noted that the ITAT's decision was based on a factual appreciation of the material on record. The Tribunal found that services were rendered to the assessee by the two private limited companies, and their directors were examined. The ITAT concluded that Dr. Anil Parikh had received a retainer and had introduced the assessee's product to some doctors. Shri Yogesh Parikh, a social activist, had also indented microscopes worth Rs. 1,70,00,000/- and received commission. The Tribunal found no cogent material to show that the payments were not commensurate with the services rendered. Payments were made by cheques, and the recipient companies were assessed to tax. The Court held that the question of whether an expenditure was laid out wholly and exclusively for business purposes is a question of fact, and the ITAT's findings on services rendered and the justification for payments did not raise a substantial question of law. Therefore, the ITAT's deletion of the addition was upheld.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the ITAT was right in law and on facts in deleting the entire addition of Rs. 20,92,060 in respect of the alleged commission payment? (Question of law and fact) 2. Whether the ITAT was right in law and on facts in not appreciating that the other two parties, M/s. Rajiv Traders Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Anang Polufil Pvt. Ltd., were never produced by the assessee, stating they were not traceable, and therefore, there was no question of issuing summons to them? (Question of law and fact) 3. Whether the ITAT was right in law and on facts in not appreciating that Shri Anil Parikh and Yogesh Parikh had not rendered sufficient service due to their preoccupation/other engagements, and therefore, the allowance of 10% of commission payment by the AO was justified? (Question of law and fact) 4. Whether the ITAT had correctly appreciated the facts on record so as to delete the entire addition of Rs. 20,92,060? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: The judgment does not record specific contentions made by the assessee before the High Court. However, the ITAT's reasoning indicates that the assessee argued that services were rendered by the two private limited companies for which payments were made, and the directors of these companies were examined. Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the AO disallowed the commission payment because Shri Yogesh Parikh, a director of Y.K.M. Intermediates Pvt. Ltd., lacked expertise in the products being sold and could not have spared time to visit doctors. They also argued that Dr. Anil Parikh had not made special efforts to sell the assessee's products and there was no justification for paying him Rs. 1 lakh. The Revenue contended that the ITAT failed to appreciate these facts and the non-production of other parties.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 256(2),Section 256(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

INCOME TAX APPLICATION No 178 of 1998

For Approval and Signature:

Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE R.K.ABICHANDANI and MR.JUSTICE A.R.DAVE ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgements? Yes

2.

To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgement? No 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? No 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 256(2)

All 149 judgments and leading authorities on Section 256(2) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →