https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259064 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the commission on sales paid was not subject to Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It was determined that since the commission was contingent on turnover and not periodic, it did not fall under the purview of Section 40(c). The Court emphasized that non-periodic payments like lump sum or one-time payments do not attract the disallowance under Section 40(c). Consequently, the Court answered the referred questions in favor of the assessee, concluding that the disallowance under Section 40(c) was not permissible in this case. en-us Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 29 Apr 2015 09:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259064 The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the commission on sales paid was not subject to Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act. It was determined that since the commission was contingent on turnover and not periodic, it did not fall under the purview of Section 40(c). The Court emphasized that non-periodic payments like lump sum or one-time payments do not attract the disallowance under Section 40(c). Consequently, the Court answered the referred questions in favor of the assessee, concluding that the disallowance under Section 40(c) was not permissible in this case. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 09 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=259064