Concurrent factual findings on royalty allowability and reasonableness barred High Court interference absent a substantial question of law.

Concurrent factual findings that the fixed royalty payment did not relate to earlier years and was allowable in the year under consideration, and that royalty at 8% of turnover paid to the Managing Director was not excessive, meant the disallowances could not be sustained. As those conclusions rested on evidence and the agreement on record, no substantial question of law arose for HC interference. The appeal therefore failed, and the Tribunal's order was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the fixed royalty payment of Rs. 60,00,000 was relating to earlier years and was inadmissible for the year under consideration; (ii) Whether the 8% royalty on turnover paid to the Managing Director was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether the fixed royalty payment of Rs. 60,00,000 was relating to earlier years and was inadmissible for the year under consideration.

Analysis: The appellate authority and the Tribunal found, on the agreement and the record, that there was nothing to show that the payment related to earlier years. The finding was treated as a factual determination.

Conclusion: The disallowance of Rs. 60,00,000 was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the 8% royalty on turnover paid to the Managing Director was excessive.

Analysis: The appellate authority held that the royalty at 8% was not excessive, and the Tribunal affirmed that view. The finding was again one of fact.

Conclusion: The disallowance on the ground of excessiveness was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose from the Tribunal's order, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the lower fact-finding authorities concurrently record factual findings on allowability and reasonableness of expenditure, the High Court will not interfere in the absence of a substantial question of law.

---