https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49664 A Tribunal's finding that intermediary sales were sham, with profits truly earned by the assessee, was treated as a pure finding of fact supported by evidence; it did not raise a referable question of law under section 66(1). The Court also accepted that profits from branch sales in Native States were apportionable under section 42(1) and section 42(3) where part of the manufacturing activity occurred in British India, and rejected reliance on section 14(2)(c). The apportionment ratio was likewise treated as factual. The assessments were therefore sustained. en-us Wed, 26 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 09 Jan 2015 15:59:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49664 A Tribunal's finding that intermediary sales were sham, with profits truly earned by the assessee, was treated as a pure finding of fact supported by evidence; it did not raise a referable question of law under section 66(1). The Court also accepted that profits from branch sales in Native States were apportionable under section 42(1) and section 42(3) where part of the manufacturing activity occurred in British India, and rejected reliance on section 14(2)(c). The apportionment ratio was likewise treated as factual. The assessments were therefore sustained. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 26 Sep 1956 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=49664