TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (8) TMI 208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 1992-93. 2. When the matters came up for final hearing, Mr. Vimal Gupta appearing for the appellant stated that though the appeals were admitted on two substantial questions of law, the appellant in both the appeals is pressing only one common question of law which is set out hereunder: " Whether the incentive commission paid to the sister company which was more than other sub-agents allowable for deduction?" 3. The relevant facts giving rise to the present appeals are briefly set out hereunder. (i) The assessee's business is that of being general sales agents of Saudi Arabian Airlines. The assessee earned commission at the rate of 12% from Saudi Arabian Airlines on the tickets booked/sold by them. The assessee appointed several age....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Tribunal's order dated 21st October, 1999 filed the above appeals, inter alia, contending that the Tribunal was not right in law in allowing the assessee's claim of incentive commission paid to its sister concern which was half per cent. more than the other subagents and which has been correctly disallowed in terms of section 40A(2)(b) of the Act. 4. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for both sides. We have also perused the order passed by the Tribunal dated 21st October, 1999 which is impugned by the Revenue in the present Appeals. We find that the following facts were established before the Tribunal and the same have been accepted by the Revenue even before us. (i) That the assessee apart from paying handling charges at ....