Reference jurisdiction and factual findings: challenge to commission deduction was treated as a question of fact, so no reference was directed.

The proposed reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act concerned the Tribunal's allowance of a 40% deduction from incentive bonus or commission. The HC held that the issue was one of fact, because the challenge was directed at the Tribunal's factual conclusion rather than a referable question of law. In reference jurisdiction, such a finding would not be reopened unless it was shown to be perverse or unsupported by material. No reference was directed and the application was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the question sought to be referred under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, raised a referable question of law or was merely a question of fact.

Analysis: The application concerned the Department's challenge to the Tribunal's allowance of 40% deduction against incentive bonus or commission received by the assessee. The Court held that the proposed reference turned on the Tribunal's factual conclusion and would not be examined in reference jurisdiction unless the finding was shown to be perverse or unsupported by material.

Conclusion: The question was treated as one of fact and no reference was directed. The application was rejected by discharging the rule.

---