Business-promotion commission deductions require reliable evidence of recipients, payments and commercial purpose; unsupported secret commission claims remain disallowed.

Business-promotion expenditure claimed as secret commission is deductible under Section 37(1) only where the taxpayer establishes its nature, genuineness and business purpose through primary particulars and supporting evidence. The notes state that failure to provide recipients' identities and addresses, payment dates, payment mode or documentary proof leaves the primary evidentiary burden unmet, warranting disallowance. The stated analysis further distinguishes this evidentiary failure from the separate question whether recipients were private persons or public servants. Tribunal findings supported by the record and not perverse do not give rise to a substantial question of law under Section 260A.

---

---

Issues: Whether the claimed business-promotion expenditure, stated to be secret commission paid for procuring business, was allowable as a deduction under Section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Deduction under Section 37(1) requires the assessee to establish the nature, genuineness and business purpose of the expenditure through primary particulars and supporting evidence. The assessee did not furnish the recipients' names and addresses, payment dates, payment mode or documentary proof. The disallowance was therefore sustained on failure to discharge the primary evidentiary burden, independently of the contention that the recipients were private persons rather than public servants. The Tribunal's findings were factual, supported by the record, and were neither perverse nor shown to disregard relevant material; consequently, no substantial question of law warranting interference under Section 260A arose.

Conclusion: The expenditure was not allowable as a business deduction; the questions of law were answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.

---