Commission to agents was factual, not sales promotion expenditure, so no referable question of law arose.

Commission paid to agents for procuring sales orders was treated as a finding of fact and not as sales promotion expenditure, so it did not fall within the disallowance regime under section 37(3A). Because the classification depended on the factual character of the payment and not on any disputed legal principle, no referable question of law arose for reference under section 256(2). The reference application was therefore liable to be dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that commission paid to agents was not expenditure on sales promotion so as to attract disallowance under section 37(3A), and whether any referable question of law arose from that finding.

Analysis: The Tribunal's view that the payment was commission for procuring sales orders and not sales promotion expenditure was treated as a finding of fact. On that footing, the statutory reference to sales promotion in section 37(3B) did not bring the expenditure within the disallowance provision in section 37(3A). As the matter depended on the factual character of the expenditure, no question of law arose for reference under section 256(2).

Conclusion: No referable question of law arose, and the reference application was liable to be dismissed.

---