https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14937 The court upheld that the appointment of the sole selling agent violated sections 294 and 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 due to lack of required special resolutions. Despite this, the court ruled that the commission paid could be allowed as a business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 if services were rendered and payment was reasonable. The court highlighted the need for a determination on whether the agreement was a sham or genuine to assess the commission's deductibility. The case was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for further action. en-us Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 12:03:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14937 The court upheld that the appointment of the sole selling agent violated sections 294 and 314 of the Companies Act, 1956 due to lack of required special resolutions. Despite this, the court ruled that the commission paid could be allowed as a business expenditure under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 if services were rendered and payment was reasonable. The court highlighted the need for a determination on whether the agreement was a sham or genuine to assess the commission's deductibility. The case was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for further action. Case-Laws Income Tax Tue, 18 Jan 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=14937