2004 PLP 2125 (PTD)
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BALAJI ENTERPRISES
| Citation | 2004 PLP 2125 (PTD) |
| Forum / Court | 254 I T R 553 |
| Bench Members | B.N. Kirpal and S. Santosh Hegde, JJ |
| Parties | COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BALAJI ENTERPRISES |
| Primary Law | Income‑tax‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 2125 (PTD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Income‑tax‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 2125 (PTD)?
The case was heard and decided by the 254 I T R 553 bench comprising: B.N. Kirpal and S. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 2125 (PTD) (COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX Versus BALAJI ENTERPRISES). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- V. Ramchandran, Senior Advocate (P.Venugopal, P. S. Sudheer and Ms. Surekhan Raman, for K.J. John, Advocate) for Respondent.
- Ms. A. Subhashini and B, V.B. Das, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(Appeal by special leave from the order, dated February 8, 1999 of the Madras High Court in T.C.P. No.820 of 1997). ‑‑‑‑Reference‑‑‑Business expenditure‑‑‑Service charges paid‑‑‑Whether allowable‑‑‑Question of law‑‑‑Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, Ss. 37 &
256. The Supreme Court directed the question whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of service charges amounting to Rs.1,82,03,470 or any part thereof in computing the profits of the assessee, to be referred to the High Court in view of the decision of the High Court in CIT v. Balaji Enterprises (1999) 236 ITR 589 (Mad.) calling for a reference on a similar claim for deduction by the assessee for another period. CIT v. Balaji Enterprises (1999) 236 ITR 589 (Mad.) ref. The order of the High Court (R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.), dated February 8, 1999, delivered by R. Jayasimha Babu, J was as follows:‑‑ Though we have a suspicion that all is not well in these transactions, that by itself does not warrant a reference, which involves primarily reassessment of question of facts which have been considered by the Tribunal in great detail and, found against the Revenue. The Tribunal, after looking into the agreement between the assessee and the other persons to‑ whom the payments were made as also the correspondence and others surrounding circumstances, has held that the agreements were genuine and that the payments in fact were made for the services rendered. The Revenue does not dispute the fact that payments were made as the recipients of these payments were assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the recipients had also shown the receipts in their books. The Tribunal has disallowed a part of the expenditure as stated to have been incurred by the assessee for sales promotion expenses paid to one of the respondents. The facts have been investigated by the Tribunal and the findings of the facts must be accepted, the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority. The case petition is, therefore, dismissed. Ms. A. Subhashini and B, V.B. Das, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Judgment & Decree
CIT v. Balaji Enterprises (1999) 236 ITR 589 (Mad.) ref. The order of the High Court (R. Jayasimha Babu and Mrs. A. Subbulakshmy, JJ.), dated February 8, 1999, delivered by R. Jayasimha Babu, J was as follows:‑‑ Though we have a suspicion that all is not well in these transactions, that by itself does not warrant a reference, which involves primarily reassessment of question of facts which have been considered by the Tribunal in great detail and, found against the Revenue. The Tribunal, after looking into the agreement between the assessee and the other persons to‑ whom the payments were made as also the correspondence and others surrounding circumstances, has held that the agreements were genuine and that the payments in fact were made for the services rendered. The Revenue does not dispute the fact that payments were made as the recipients of these payments were assessees under the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the recipients had also shown the receipts in their books. The Tribunal has disallowed a part of the expenditure as stated to have been incurred by the assessee for sales promotion expenses paid to one of the respondents. The facts have been investigated by the Tribunal and the findings of the facts must be accepted, the Tribunal being the final fact finding authority. The case petition is, therefore, dismissed. Ms. A. Subhashini and B, V.B. Das, Advocates, for the Appellant. V. Ramchandran, Senior Advocate (P.Venugopal, P. S. Sudheer and Ms. Surekhan Raman, for K.J. John, Advocate) for Respondent. Special leave granted. After hearing the counsel for the parties in our opinion a question of law does arise, especially in view of the fact that the Madras High Court in CIT v. Balaji Enterprises (1999) 236 ITR 589 in case of the respondent relating to a similar claim for deduction had allowed the application under section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the High Court and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to the High Court: "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to allow deduction of service charges amounting to Rs.1,82,03,470 or any part thereof?" M.B.A./1097/FC Leave granted.