TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court upholds High Court's judgment on deductions under Section 37</h1> <h3>Premier Breweries Ltd, Karnataka Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin</h3> Premier Breweries Ltd, Karnataka Versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Cochin - [2015] 372 ITR 180 (SC) Issues Involved:1. Reframing of questions by the High Court after the conclusion of arguments.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to set aside the order of the Tribunal in its Reference Jurisdiction.3. Correctness of the High Court's exercise of jurisdiction in re-appreciating evidence and reversing the Tribunal's findings.4. Entitlement of the assessee to deductions under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Detailed Analysis:1. Reframing of Questions by the High Court:The appellant contended that the High Court erred in reframing questions after the conclusion of arguments without giving an opportunity to the assessee, citing the precedent set in M. Janardhana Rao vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (2005) 2 SCC 324. The Supreme Court noted that while the decision in M. Janardhana Rao pertained to Section 260-A of the Act, the principles could apply to Section 256 as well. However, the Court found that the High Court's reframing of questions was appropriate and did not violate procedural fairness.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Set Aside the Tribunal's Order:The appellant argued that the High Court exceeded its Reference Jurisdiction by setting aside the Tribunal's order, referencing C.P. Sarathy Mudaliar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Andhra Pradesh 1966 Vol. LXII ITR 576. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court's role in Reference Jurisdiction is advisory and not appellate. However, it concluded that the error was one of form rather than substance since the High Court had answered the questions of law appropriately.3. Correctness of the High Court's Exercise of Jurisdiction:The appellant challenged the High Court's re-appreciation of evidence, arguing that the High Court improperly assessed the Tribunal's findings without a question of perversity being raised. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court did not disturb the primary facts found by the Tribunal but instead focused on the correct legal inferences from those facts. The Supreme Court found no fault with the High Court's approach, stating that determining the legal inference from primary facts is a question of law.4. Entitlement to Deductions under Section 37:The core issue was whether the assessee was entitled to deductions for payments made to commission agents under Section 37 of the Income Tax Act. The High Court had examined the agreements, affidavits, and payments made by the assessee, as well as Government Circulars regulating such transactions. The High Court concluded that the assessee had not discharged the burden of proof required for such deductions, a decision the Supreme Court upheld. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court correctly applied legal standards, referencing Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax 1967 (63) ITR 57 and Lachminarayan Madan Lal vs. Commissioner of Income Tax West Bengal 1972 (86) ITR 439.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Appeal No. 1569 of 2007, affirming the High Court's judgment. Consequently, Civil Appeal No. 3214 of 2011 and SLP (C) No. 10080 of 2014 were also dismissed. The High Court's reframing of questions, exercise of jurisdiction, and conclusions on the assessee's entitlement to deductions under Section 37 were upheld as legally sound and procedurally fair.
TaxTMI 