1994 (7) TMI 59

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eference of the following questions of law under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 : " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in following its own order for the assess ment year 1983-84 regarding commission paid to Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna when the facts in this year were materially different as clearly shown from the evidence ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n irrelevant material ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not following the order for 1983-84 of the Tribunal regarding salary paid to Sheo Kumar Gupta and Atul Kumar Jain when the issues were identical as well as relied upon by the Tribunal was the same in both years ? 5. Whether the Tribunal was justified in not allowing the salary....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the Income-tax Tribunal fell into error in rejecting the applicant's application under section 256(1) of the Act. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant sold its goods through one Messrs. Vishwanath Balkrishna for which an agreement existed between the parties. The assessing authority did not allow the commission paid. In appeal also, the applicant could not succeed and the app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....partment hence not allowing the said commission for the subsequent assessment years including the year in question is illegal. The finding recorded in a particular year depends on the facts of that assessment year in question and since each assessment year is separate by itself that cannot constitute a ground for holding that commission was paid by the assessee even for the year in question to Mes....