TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter ✕
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 ✕ 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 commission paid to the sole selling agents was allowable as a deduction on the ground of commercial expediency. (ii) Whether interest payable on borrowed moneys was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to deposits collected and retained by the assessee's sole selling agents. (iii) Whether local cess and local cess surcharge were allowable as a deduction in the relevant assessment year.
Issue (i): Whether commission paid to the sole selling agents was allowable as a deduction on the ground of commercial expediency.
Analysis: The issue stood covered by the earlier decision of the Court on the same line of reasoning. The payment was treated as incurred for commercial expediency and therefore as an admissible business deduction.
Conclusion: In favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether interest payable on borrowed moneys was liable to be disallowed under section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in relation to deposits collected and retained by the assessee's sole selling agents.
Analysis: The issue also stood covered by the earlier decision relied upon by the Court. On that basis, no part of the interest was held liable to disallowance on the stated facts.
Conclusion: In favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether local cess and local cess surcharge were allowable as a deduction in the relevant assessment year.
Analysis: The liability was treated as deductible in the year in which the demand arose. The Court further noted that if the levy had later been brought to tax on cessation of liability under section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the deduction would be allowed accordingly, leaving verification of that aspect to the Tribunal for giving effect to the order.
Conclusion: In favour of the assessee, subject to verification of taxation on cessation of liability.
Final Conclusion: The reference was answered in favour of the assessee on all substantive questions, with the third issue left to be worked out by the Tribunal in the manner indicated.
Ratio Decidendi: A business liability is deductible in the year in which the demand giving rise to it accrues, and a deduction cannot be denied merely because a subsequent cess or surcharge dispute may trigger consideration of cessation of liability under section 41 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
TaxTMI 
