TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a reference was required on the first question, and (ii) whether a reference was required on the second question concerning allowance of secret commission as a deduction.
Issue (i): Whether a reference was required on the first question.
Analysis: The first question was covered by an earlier binding decision of the same Court on the point, and therefore did not require a further reference for determination.
Conclusion: The first question was answered in favour of the assessee and no reference was directed.
Issue (ii): Whether a reference was required on the second question concerning allowance of secret commission as a deduction.
Analysis: The Tribunal had relied on earlier orders, considered the evidence on record, including the board resolution authorising payment of secret commission and the competitive nature of the trade, and had treated the allowance as a deduction on findings of fact. No case was made out that the finding was unsupported by evidence or perverse.
Conclusion: The second question was not directed to be referred.
Final Conclusion: The application for reference was rejected and the rule was discharged without costs.
Ratio Decidendi: A question does not warrant reference where it is covered by binding precedent or turns purely on a factual finding not shown to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.
TaxTMI 
