TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (7) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he relevant period, i.e. Assessment Year 1983-84. In the return filed by the assessee for that year, it had stated that a sum of Rs. 4,60,433/- was paid by the assessee to one Mr. Jack Barouk of Brussels who was appointed by the assessee as its commercial agent in the said country for the sale of the assessee's goods. The aforesaid provision, i.e. Section 35B(1)(b)(iv), provides for weighted deduction that is in addition to the actual amount spent, one-third thereof as an additional expenditure, which provision was introduced to give the benefit to the assessee. This provision reads as under: "Section 35B(1)(b) (iv): Where an assessee, being a domestic company or a person (other than a company) who is resident in India, has incurred, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent of Brussels. It is also not in dispute that this payment was made against some sales of carpets belonging to the assessee, made by the said Mr. Jack Barouk. The only dispute is as to whether he could be treated as "agent" of the assessee. The appellant had filed appeal against the order of the Assessing Officer refusing to give benefit of the aforesaid provision, with Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ['CIT (Appeals)], which was dismissed. However, in further appeal preferred before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), the appellant succeeded. A perusal of the judgment of the ITAT reveals that ITAT had looked into the agreement that was entered into between the assessee and the aforesaid Mr. Jack Barouk and found that this a....