https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181168 A deduction under section 10(2)(xv) was refused because the assessee failed to prove that the settlement payment was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of trade; the Tribunal found no trading relationship, no advance of money, and no finance-supply agreement, and that factual finding was upheld. The challenge to the finding that the memorandum of oral agreement dated 1 March 1947 was not genuine also failed, because the Tribunal had material to assess the document's origin, execution, and surrounding circumstances as a whole. The High Court reiterated that a finding of fact on reference will not be disturbed unless unsupported by evidence or perverse. en-us Tue, 23 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Apr 2016 16:23:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181168 A deduction under section 10(2)(xv) was refused because the assessee failed to prove that the settlement payment was wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of trade; the Tribunal found no trading relationship, no advance of money, and no finance-supply agreement, and that factual finding was upheld. The challenge to the finding that the memorandum of oral agreement dated 1 March 1947 was not genuine also failed, because the Tribunal had material to assess the document's origin, execution, and surrounding circumstances as a whole. The High Court reiterated that a finding of fact on reference will not be disturbed unless unsupported by evidence or perverse. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 23 Apr 1957 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=181168