https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7837 Commission paid under a subsisting agency agreement was treated as business expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, even where the commission related to controlled sugar sales. The agreement remained operative, the agent was contractually entitled to payment, and the introduction of government control did not by itself make the outlay commercially unreasonable or extraneous to the business. The governing test was commercial expediency from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's view of whether the agency should have been terminated. Once the contractual liability and payment were established, the expenditure was regarded as incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. en-us Fri, 12 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:20:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7837 Commission paid under a subsisting agency agreement was treated as business expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, even where the commission related to controlled sugar sales. The agreement remained operative, the agent was contractually entitled to payment, and the introduction of government control did not by itself make the outlay commercially unreasonable or extraneous to the business. The governing test was commercial expediency from the businessman's perspective, not the revenue's view of whether the agency should have been terminated. Once the contractual liability and payment were established, the expenditure was regarded as incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Case-Laws Income Tax Fri, 12 Dec 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=7837