Business expenditure allowances upheld for approved commission, guarantee payments, pollution-control costs, and production-linked bonuses.

Commission paid to a sole selling agent, where approved under the company-law framework and supported by prior-year practice, is not to be disallowed as excessive or as a past-year item unless the revenue shows inadequate services or lack of business justification; accrued liability principles may support deduction. Bank guarantee commission paid to directors for personal guarantees can remain allowable when consistently paid and shown to be for business borrowing. Drainage and pollution-control contributions, car expenses, extra shift depreciation, incentive bonus, and employee bonus are allowable where linked to business needs, production, or established practice, subject to verification of the depreciation computation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether commission paid to the sole selling agent was disallowable as excessive or as relating to a past year. (ii) Whether bank guarantee commission paid to directors was disallowable. (iii) Whether expenditure on drainage and pollution-control related contribution and car expenses was allowable as business expenditure. (iv) Whether depreciation for extra shift allowance and miscellaneous expenditure including incentive bonus and bonus to an employee were allowable.

Issue (i): Whether commission paid to the sole selling agent was disallowable as excessive or as relating to a past year.

Analysis: The payment was made with prior approval under the company-law regime governing sole selling agents, and the record showed that commission at the higher rate had been paid in earlier years as well. The income-tax authorities had not established, on material, that the services rendered were inadequate or that the approved rate was not justified. The amount said to relate to an earlier year was also held to be deductible in light of the governing principle applied to accrued liabilities.

Conclusion: The disallowance of the sole selling agency commission was deleted, including the amount treated as relating to a past year.

Issue (ii): Whether bank guarantee commission paid to directors was disallowable.

Analysis: The commission had been paid consistently from earlier years for the risk undertaken by the directors in furnishing personal guarantees for business borrowing. No sufficient basis was shown to treat the payment as unreasonable or not incurred for business purposes.

Conclusion: The disallowance of bank guarantee commission was deleted.

Issue (iii): Whether expenditure on drainage and pollution-control related contribution and car expenses was allowable as business expenditure.

Analysis: The contribution towards drainage and environmental measures was treated as connected with the business need of controlling pollution and maintaining factory operations, and no capital asset belonging to the assessee was acquired. Car expenses were also followed from the earlier year's treatment and no separate basis for disallowance was sustained.

Conclusion: The expenditure on drainage and pollution-control related contribution and the car expenses were held allowable and the disallowances were deleted.

Issue (iv): Whether depreciation for extra shift allowance and miscellaneous expenditure including incentive bonus and bonus to an employee were allowable.

Analysis: The extra shift depreciation claim was accepted subject to verification of arithmetical accuracy. The incentive bonus was found to be supported by a pre-existing resolution linked to increased production and was treated as a genuine business payment. The bonus paid to the employee was also allowed on the same reasoning that supported the bonus payments already accepted in the assessee's favour.

Conclusion: Depreciation for extra shift allowance was directed to be allowed after verification, the incentive bonus disallowance was deleted, and the employee bonus disallowance was deleted.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the principal disputed deductions, with one claim requiring verification before allowance, and the overall result was a partial relief in favour of the assessee.

Ratio Decidendi: Expenditure approved under company-law controls or incurred for business expediency is not to be disallowed under section 40A or section 37 unless the revenue establishes, on material, that it is excessive, unreasonable, or unrelated to the business; genuine production-linked bonus and recurring business payments are allowable when supported by business necessity and evidence.

---