1971 (12) TMI 21

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iness expense laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business ? " The assessee is a firm operating as shipping, clearing and forwarding agents at the Machilipatnam Port. As it was in need of securing business from M/s.General Produce Co. Ltd., it had approached M/s. Mineral Products & Co., who after the necessary negotiations procured the business to the assessee. The business procured consisted in the right of the assessee in carrying out the job of clearing and forwarding iron ore belonging to M/s. General Produce Co. Ltd. for shipment from Machilipatnam Port, and in consideration of such service the General Produce Co Ltd. agreed to pay the assessee-firm handling charges at Rs. 8.87 per ton including port dues, stevedo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of capital payment, that it should only be treated as ordinary brokerage paid for securing additional business and as such constitutes revenue expenditure allowable under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 192. Hence, this reference. The assessee-firm had entered into an agreement with M/s. Mineral Products & Co. of Calcutta to procure only the business relating to the export of iron ore from Machilipatnam Port belonging to M/s. General Produce Co. Ltd., and had undertaken to pay brokerage of Rs. 1.25 per ton in relation to that contract. This obligation to pay brokerage is only with regard to this particular contract relating to the goods of General Produce Co. Ltd., is to run concurrently with it and is to last only for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is a case where the assessee had entered into an agreement with another for procuring him the licence for exporting goods to Ceylon and had undertaken to pay 50 per cent. of the profits realised and when he claimed the amount paid to the person who procured him the business as revenue expenditure, the court rejected that contention and held that what was paid was really in form and in substance a division of ascertained profits and as such the assessee was not entitled to any deduction under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act of 1922. This decision has no bearing on and has no similarity at all to the facts of the present case. In Chintalapudi Ranganayakulu v. Commissioner of Income-tax the assessee had entered into lease agreem....