{"id":266692,"date":"1972-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1972-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972"},"modified":"2017-05-28T18:54:15","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T13:24:15","slug":"aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972","title":{"rendered":"Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 520, 1973 SCR (1)1097<\/div>\n
Author: K Hegde<\/div>\n
Bench: Hegde, K.S.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT29\/08\/1972\n\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nBENCH:\nHEGDE, K.S.\nREDDY, P. JAGANMOHAN\nKHANNA, HANS RAJ\n\nCITATION:\n 1973 AIR  520\t\t  1973 SCR  (1)1097\n CITATOR INFO :\n RF\t    1975 SC   5\t (23)\n RF\t    1986 SC  98\t (18)\n R\t    1986 SC1483\t (4)\n\n\nACT:\nIncome Tax Act<\/a> 1922 s. 10(2)<\/a> (xv) & 66-Expenditure laid\t out\nwholly\tand exclusively for business-Commission\t payable  to\nselling\t agents\t in  a case where  sales  are  not  actually\neffected  through selling agents-Construction of  agreement-\nExpenditure  on\t such  Commission  whether  allowable  as  a\ndeduction-Question of fact decided by Tribunal-High  Court's\npower to interfere in reference proceedings under s. 66<\/a>.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nUnder  clause  (6)  of the agreement  between  the  assessee\ncompany and its Selling Agent, discount was to be allowed to\nthe  Selling Agents not only on sales effected\tthrough\t the\nsaid  Agents  or  sub-agents  but  also\t on  sales  effected\ndirectly by the principal.  Under clause (8) the Agents were\nresponsible  for  the  payment if the  price  due  from\t the\npurchasers immediately after-the goods left the\t Principal's\nworks\tor  godown.   Such  payment  bad  to  be   made\t  on\npresentation  of  necessary  papers  or\t documents  by\t the\nassessee,  not later than a fortnight after the\t goods\twere\ndespatched.  In default of payment the assessee was entitled\nto charge interest until realisation at the rate of six\t per\ncent   per  annum  on  the  balance  for  the\ttime   being\noutstanding.   Under  cl. (9) of the agreement,\t the  Agents\nwere  also responsible for due fulfilment of  all  contracts\nmade by them whether for ready or forward sales and also for\nthe  consequences of any breach of contract by any  customer\nand  for  all losses and damages arising  therefrom  to\t the\nassessee  provided there was no default on the part  of\t the\nassessee  in manufacturing or giving delivery of  any  goods\nrequired  or sold under any contract in compliance with\t the\nterms of the agreement.\nThe  commission paid by the assessee to the  Selling  Agents\nwas  allowed  by the income tax\t authorities  as  deductible\nexpenditure  for some years.  In respect of  the  assessment\nyear 1955-56 however the assessees claim for such  deduction\nwas  disallowed.   The\tIncome Tax  Officer  held  that\t the\npayment\t had not been made on business considerations.\t The\nAppellate  Assistant  Commissioner  further  held  that\t the\nagreement had not been acted upon.  The Tribunal however did\nnot agree with the view that the payment had been, made\t for\nextra-commercial  considerations, or that the agreement\t had\nnot been acted upon.  The High Court in reference held\tthat\nthe expenditure in question was not expended for the purpose\nof the asses was business within the meaning of s. 10(2)(xv)<\/a>\nof  the income-tax Act, 1922 inasmuch as in  the  accounting\nyear all sales were directly effected by the assessee and no\nsale was effected by the Selling Agents.  In appeal to\tthis\nCourt by certificate,\nHELD : (i) The jurisdiction of the High Court under s. 66<\/a> is\nonly  an advisory jurisdiction.\t That being so it  can\tonly\nPronounce  its opinion on the questions referred to it.\t  It\ncannot\tsit as an appellate court over the decision  of\t the\nTribunal., [1099C]\nIn the present case the High Court overlooked the effect  of\ncls.  6,  8 and 9 of the agreement. it also  overlooked\t the\nsignificance  of  the  fact that in the\t earlier  years\t the\ncommission paid to the Selling Agents had been considered is\nI deductible expenditure.  It also did not take notice\n1098\nof the contention of the assessee that though the sales were\ndirectly effected by the assessee they were all convassed by\nthe Selling Agents.\n[1102E-F]\nThe  Tribunal  after taking into consideration\tthe  various\nterms  of the agreement as well as the significance  of\t the\ndeduction given in the earlier assessment years came to\t the\nconclusion  that  the Income-tax Officer and  the  Appellate\nAssistant  Commissioner\t erred in, their  opinion  that\t the\nexpenditure  was not incurred for any commercial  expediency\nor  that  the agreement was not in force  in;  the  relevant\naccounting  year.   The Tribunal had given good\t reasons  in\nsupport of its conclussion.  The primary facts found by, the\nTribunal and the factual inference drawn thereform was,\t not\nopen to review by the High Court. [1103F]\nThe appeal must accordingly be allowed.\nSwadeshi  Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner\t of  Income<\/a>-\ntax, U.P.. 63 I.T.R. 57, distinguished on facts.\nCommissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v. Walchand & Co. Private\nLtd<\/a>.,  65  I.T.R.  381, and J.K.  Woollen  Manufacturers  v.\nCommissioner of Income-tax U.P<\/a>., 72 I.T.R. 612, applied.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : C.A. No. 394 of 1969.
\nAppeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated Feb-
\nruary  12,  1968 of the Calcutta High  Court  in  Income-tax
\nReference No. 57 of 1964.\n<\/p>\n
A.K. Sen, Leila Seth, 0. P. Khaitan and B. P. Maheshwari,
\nfor the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
S.K.  Wiyar,  R.  N. Sachthey and S. P.\t Nayar,\t for  the
\nrespondent.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHegde, J. This is an assessee’s appeal by certificate  under
\nS.  66A(2)  of\tthe  Indian  Income-tax\t Act<\/a>,  1922  (to  be
\nhereinafter  referred  to  as  the  Act).   The\t  Income-tax
\nAppellate   Tribunal.\tCalcutta  ‘B’  Bench  as   per\t the
\ndirections  given by the High Court in an application  under
\nS.  66(2) submitted the following question for\tascertaining
\nthe Opinion of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
\t      “Whether on the facts and in the circumstances
\n\t      of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding
\n\t      that the sum of Rs. 1,56,806\/- was wholly\t and
\n\t      exclusively  laid\t out  for  the\tpurpose\t  of
\n\t      business\tand as such allowable as a  business
\n\t      expenditure.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  High Court has answered that question in  the  negative
\nand  in\t favour\t of the Revenue.   The\tcorrectness  of\t the
\ndecision  of the High Court is challenged before us  by\t the
\nassessee.\n<\/p>\n
The question referred to the High Court for its opinion pro-
\nceeds  on the basis that the facts and circumstances of\t the
\ncase as
\n1099<\/span>
\nfound  by  the\tTribunal  are not in  dispute  but  what  is
\ndisputed is the legal affect of the facts and  circumstances
\nfound by the Tribunal.\tAs held by this Court in the earlier
\ndecisions  that\t when  a question refers to  the  facts\t and
\ncircumstances\tin  the\t case,\tit  means  the\t facts\t and
\ncircumstances as found by the Tribunal.\t If any party  wants
\nto  challenge the correctness of the findings given  by\t the
\nTribunal either on the ground that the same is not supported
\nby  any\t evidence  on regard or is based  on  irrelevant  or
\ninadmissible  evidence\tor is unreasonable  or\tperverse,  a
\nquestion raising any one of these grounds must be sought for
\nand obtained.  It is needles-, to say that the\tjurisdiction
\nof  the\t High Court in a reference under s. 66<\/a>\tis  only  an
\nadvisory jurisdiction.\tThat being so it can only  pronounce
\nits opinion on the questions referred to it.  It is trite to
\nsay that it cannot sit as an appellate court over the  deci-
\nsion  of the Tribunal.\tBearing these facts in mind, let  us
\nnow proceed to set out the facts as found by the Tribunal.
\nThe  controversy in this case relates to the  assessment  of
\nthe   assessee\t for  the  assessment  year   1955-56,\t the
\ncorresponding previous year being the financial year  ending
\non March 31, 1955.\n<\/p>\n
By  an agreement dated December 30, 1949, the assessee\tcom-
\npany appointed M\/s.  J. K. Alloys Ltd. as the selling agents
\nfor  selling  its  aluminium products.\t The  agreement\t was
\neffective  for a period of 5 years from April 1, 1950.\t The
\nrelevant clauses of the agreement are 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 14\t and\n<\/p>\n
15.  They read thus :\n<\/p>\n
\t      “1.  That the Agents shall act as the  Selling
\n\t      Agents   of  all\tAluminum   Ingots,   Sheets,
\n\t      Circles,\tExpanded Metal, Shots, Utensils\t and
\n\t      Anodised\tand alloy goods manufactured by\t the
\n\t      Principal.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      2.    That this Agreement shall commence\tfrom
\n\t      the 1st day of April, 1950 and shall continue,
\n\t      unless otherwise determined by mutual  consent
\n\t      of  the parties, till the 31st day  of  March,
\n\t      1955.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      6.That  the  Principal will allow\t the  Agents
\n\t      discount in the manner indicated hereunder  on
\n\t      sale of all products of the Principal effected
\n\t      by the Agents either by themselves or  through
\n\t      Sub-Agents  appointed by them or\tdirectly  by
\n\t      the Principal themselves
\n Aluminium Ingots\t\t\t    1-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1\/2%
\n Aluminium Sheets & Cycles\t\t    2-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1\/2%
\n Aluminium Expanded Metal\t\t   12-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1\/2%
\n\t       Aluminium Utensils & anodised and
\n alloy goods\t\t\t\t   17-\n<\/p>\n
\t      1\/2%
\n Aluminium\t\t\t\t Shots
\n\t      5%
\n\t      1100<\/span>
\n\t      Provided\talways\tthat the rates\tof  discount
\n\t      abovementioned or any of them may be varied by
\n\t      mutual consent of the parties.\n<\/p>\n
\t      8.That the Agents shall be responsible for
\n\t      payment  of the price and all other moneys  to
\n\t      the  Principal  immediately  after  the  goods
\n\t      leave  the Principal’s works or godown.\tSuch
\n\t      payment  will  be\t made  on  presentation\t  of
\n\t      necessary\t  papers   or  documents   ‘by\t the
\n\t      Principal\t to the Agents and not later than  a
\n\t      fortnight after the date the goods shall\thave
\n\t      been  despatched.\t  In default of\t payment  as
\n\t      aforesaid\t the Principal will be\tentitled  to
\n\t      charge interest until, realisation at the rate
\n\t      of  six per cent per annum on the balance\t for
\n\t      the time being outstanding.\n<\/p>\n
\t      9.That the Agents will be responsible  for
\n\t      the  due fulfilment of all contracts  made  by
\n\t      them  whether for ready or forward  sales\t and
\n\t      also  for\t the consequences of any  breach  of
\n\t      contract\tby any customer and for\t all  losses
\n\t      and damages arising therefrom to the Principal
\n\t      provided,\t there\tshall be no default  on\t the
\n\t      part  of the Principal when  manufacturing  or
\n\t      giving delivery of any goods required or\tsold
\n\t      under  any  contract in  compliance  with\t the
\n\t      stipulations thereof.\n<\/p>\n
\t      14.That  the parties may by mutual  consent
\n\t      agree to continue after the expiry of the 31st
\n\t      day  of  March,  1955 on the  same  terms\t and
\n\t      conditions  as  are herein  contained  or\t any
\n\t      modification  thereof  as they may  decide  in
\n\t      which  case  the\tagency\tbusiness  shall\t  be
\n\t      terminated by either party giving to the other
\n\t      less than three months’ notice in writing sent
\n\t      by  Registered Post and such notice  shall  be
\n\t      deemed to have been given seven days after the
\n\t      same has been posted.\n<\/p>\n
\t      15.Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in
\n\t      any  of  the foregoing clauses if\t the  Agents
\n\t      shall  fail  to make any\tpayments  as  herein
\n\t      provided or commit any breach of any  covenant
\n\t      herein contained and on the part of the Agents
\n\t      to  be  observed and performed  the  Principal
\n\t      shall have right at any time to terminate this
\n\t      Agreement by giving to the Agent,, one month’s
\n\t      notice in respect there-\n<\/p>\n
In  the relevant year of account, the assessee paid to\tM\/s.
\nJ.  K.\tAlloys\tLtd.   Rs.  1,56,806\/-\tas  selling   agency
\ncommission  in accordance with the terms of  the  agreement.
\nThe Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim for deduction of
\nthat amount on the ground that the payment had not been made
\non business considera-\n<\/p>\n
1101<\/span><\/p>\n
 tions.\t  On  appeal the  Appellate  Assistant\tCommissioner
\nagreed with the conclusion reached by the Income-tax Officer
\nthat  the  payment had been made for some  extra  commercial
\nconsiderations;\t but he further held that the agreement\t had
\nnot  been acted upon.  On a further appeal,  the  Income-tax
\nAppellate  Tribunalopined that it was unable to concur\twith
\nthe  view  taken  by the  Income-tax  authorities  that\t the
\nagreement  had not been acted upon and that the payment\t had
\nbeen made for some extra commercial considerations.  In\t the
\ncourse of its order it observed:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “There  is  no  dispute that  the,  amount  in
\n\t      question\twas actually paid as  commission  to
\n\t      Messrs.  J. K. Alloys Ltd.  It is also  common
\n\t      ground that all the sales during the year were
\n\t      effected\tdirectly  by the  appellant  and  no
\n\t      sales were effected by the selling agents.  On
\n\t      these    facts,\tthe   Appellate\t   Assistant
\n\t      Commissioner concluded that the agreement\t bad
\n\t      not  been acted upon and that the payment\t was
\n\t      made for some extra commercial considerations.
\n\t      We  are afraid, we are unable to\tconcur\twith
\n\t      the,  Appellate Commissioner.  The  mere\tfact
\n\t      that no sales were effected during the year of
\n\t      account by the selling agents themselves\tdoes
\n\t      not, necessarily, mean that the agreement\t was
\n\t      not  acted  upon.\t In fact, clause  6  of\t the
\n\t      agreement\t quoted above explicitly  refers  to
\n\t      the fact that the agents shall be entitled  to
\n\t      the  payment of the discount even if  all\t the
\n\t      sales were effected directly by the Principals
\n\t      themselves.    The  agreement  has  not\tbeen
\n\t      impugned\tby  the\t Department as\ta  sham\t and
\n\t      collusive\t transaction;  in  fact\t the  entire
\n\t      selling agency commission paid to Messrs.\t  J.
\n\t      K. Alloys Ltd.. had all along been allowed  by
\n\t      the Department as an admissible expenditure in
\n\t      the hands of the assessee upto the  assessment
\n\t      for   the\t  year\t1954-55.    Evidently,\t the
\n\t      agreement\t in question had been  entered\tinto
\n\t      bona fide and had been acted upon.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The  only ground on which the Income-tax Officer as well  as
\nthe   Appellate\t  Assistant  Commissioner   disallowed\t the
\ncommission paid wasthat during the accounting year all\tthe
\nsales were effected directlyby\tthe assessee and no  sales
\nwere effected by the selling agents. But\t    those
\nauthorities failed to take note of the fact that apart\tfrom
\nthe  fact that the selling agents were entitled to  discount
\neven in respect of the sales directly made by the  assessee,
\nthe agents were responsible for the payment of the price due
\nfrom  the  purchasers immediately after the goods  left\t the
\nPrincipal’s works or godown.  Such payment had to be made on
\npresentation  of  necessary  papers  or\t documents  by\t the
\nassessee,  not\tlater than I fortnight after  the  date\t the
\ngoods were despatched.\tIn default of
\n1102<\/span>
\npayment\t as aforesaid, the assessee was entitled  to  charge
\ninterest  until realisation at the rate of six per cent\t per
\nannum on the balance for the time being outstanding.   Under
\ncl.  (9) of the agreement, the agents were also\t responsible
\nfor  due fulfillment of all contracts made by  them  whether
\nfor ready or forward sales and also for the consequences  of
\nany  breach of contract by any customer and for\t all  losses
\nand damages arising therefrom to the assessee provided there
\nwas no default on the part of the assessee in  manufacturing
\nor  giving delivery of any goods required or sold under\t any
\ncontract in compliance with the terms of the agreement.\t The
\nIncome-tax  Officer,  the Appellate  Assistant\tCommissioner
\nalso overlooked the fact that in the\tprevious years,\t the
\ncommission  paid by the assessee to the selling agent,,\t had
\nbeen  considered  as deductible expenditure.  From  this  it
\nfollows\t that from 1950 to 1954. the agents did function  in
\naccordance  with  the  terms  of  the  agreement.   It\t was
\ncontended  before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner\tthat
\neven  though  the  sales  were\tdirectly  effected  by\t the
\nassessee,  they\t were  canvassed  by  the  selling   agents.
\nNeither\t the Income-tax Officer nor the Appellate  Assistant
\nCommissioner  has  held\t against  that\tplea.\tUnder  these
\ncircumstances,\tthe Tribunal rightly came to the  conclusion
\nthat the commission paid was an expenditure expended  wholly
\nand  exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business,  as
\nprovided in s. 10(2)<\/a> (xv).\n<\/p>\n
The only reason that persuaded the High Court to come to the
\nconclusion that the expenditure in question was not expended
\nfor  the purpose of the assessee’s business was that in\t the
\naccounting  year  all sales were directly  effected  by\t the
\nassessee  and no sale was ‘effected by the  selling  agents.
\nBut  the  High Court overlooked clauses 6, 8 and  9  of\t the
\nagreement  referred  to\t earlier.  It  also  overlooked\t the
\nsignificance  of  the  fact that in the\t earlier  years\t the
\ncommission paid to the selling agents had been considered as
\ndeductible expenditure.\t It also did not take notice of\t the
\ncontention  of\tthe  assessee that  though  the\t sales\twere
\ndirectly  effected by the assessee, they were all  canvassed
\nby the selling agents.\n<\/p>\n
It is true that under s. 10(2)(xv)<\/a>, it is for the Income-tax
\nOfficer\t to  decide  whether any  remuneration\tpaid  by  an
\nassessee  to  his selling agents was wholly  or\t exclusively
\nexpended  for the purpose of his business. It is  also\ttrue
\nthat  the  mere\t fact  that  the  assessee  establishes\t the
\nexistence of an agreement between him and his agents and the
\nfact  of  actual payment, the discretion of  the  Income-tax
\nOfficer\t to  consider  whether\tthe  expenditure  was\tmade
\nexclusive for the purpose of the business is not taken away-
\nsee the decision of this Court in Swadeshi Cotton Mills\t Co.
\nLtd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax, U.P<\/a>.(1). The expenditure
\nincurred must be for commercial expediency.  But as observed
\nby this
\n1103<\/span>
\nCourt  in Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay v.\t Walchand  &
\nCo.  Private Ltd<\/a>.(1) that in applying the text of commercial
\nexpediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly
\nand  exclusively laid out for the, purpose of the  business,
\nreasonableness\tof the expenditure has to be  adjudged\tfrom
\nthe point of view of the businessman and not of the revenue.
\nIn  J. K.’Woollen Manufacturers v. Commissioner\t of  Income<\/a>–
\ntax, U.p.(2), after applying the rule laid down in  Walchand
\n& Co.’s case (supra) that in applying the test of commercial
\nexpediency for determining whether an expenditure was wholly
\nand  exclusively laid out for the purpose of  the  business,
\nreasonableness\tof the expenditure has to be  Adjudged\tfrom
\nthe. point of view of the businessman and not of the income-
\ntax department, this Court proceeded to observe:\n<\/p>\n
\t      “it  is,\tof  course, open  to  the  Appellate
\n\t      Tribunal\tto come to a conclusion either\tthat
\n\t      the alleged payment is not real or that it  is
\n\t      not incurred by the assessee in the  character
\n\t      of  a trader or it is not laid out wholly\t and
\n\t      exclusively for the purpose of the business of
\n\t      the assessee and to disallow it.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In  the instant case, it is not the case of the Revenue\t the
\nassessee  did not pay the commission in question nor is\t its
\ncase  that the expenditure in question was not\tincurred  by
\nthe  assessee in the character of a trader.   Therefore\t the
\nonly  question that remains. to be considered is whether  it
\nwas  not expended wholly or exclusively for the\t purpose  of
\nthe  business  of the assessee.\t The Tribunal  after  taking
\ninto  consideration  the various terms of the  agreement  as
\nwell  as  the  significance of the deduction  given  in\t the
\nearlier\t assessment  years came to the conclusion  that\t the
\nIncome-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant\tCommissioner
\nerred in their opinion that the expenditure was not incurred
\nfor any commercial’ expediency or that the agreement was not
\nin force in the relevant accounting year.  The Tribunal\t has
\ngiven  good  reasons  in support  of  its  conclusion.\t The
\nprimary\t facts\tfound  by  the\tTribunal  and  the   factual
\ninference drawn therefrom was not open to review by the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
The  High Court erroneously thought that the facts  of\tthis
\ncase fell within the ratio of the decision of this Court  in
\nSwadeshi  Cotton  Mill’s case (supra).\tThe facts  of.\tthat
\ncase were as follows
\nTherein\t appellant company was managing\t whose\tremuneration
\nwas an office allowance of Rs. 5,000\/- per month and 10%, of
\nthe  net profits of the company.  Under article 118<\/a>  of\t the
\narticles  of association of the company, its directors\twere
\neach
\n(1) 65 I.T.R. 381.\n<\/p>\n
(2) 72 I.T.R. 612.\n<\/p>\n
1104<\/span><\/p>\n
entitled  to  a remuneration of Rs. 100 per  month.   At  an
\nextraordinary  general meeting of its  shareholders  article
\n118<\/a> was amended to provide for the payment to the  directors
\nof  a commission of 1% of the net profits of the company  in
\naddition  to their monthly remuneration and as a result\t the
\nfive  directors of the company became entitled to a  sum  of
\nRs.  28,218 each for the calendar year 1948.   The  Tribunal
\nfound  that the payment of the commission to  the  directors
\nwas  for extra commercial reasons on the grounds : (i)\tthat
\nthey  did not render any special service in that year;\t(ii)
\nthat the management of the company was done by the  managing
\nagents and very little was done by the directors; (iii) that
\nthe remuneration of Rs. 100 per month was not considered  by
\nthe  directors to be inadequate in earlier years; (iv)\tthat
\nthe increase in the company’s profits by about Rs. 30  lakhs
\nwas  due to the control of cloth having been lifted and\t not
\nto any special exertion of .the directors.  On the basis  of
\nthose findings which were all findings of fact, the Tribunal
\ncame  to  the  conclusion that the commission  paid  to\t the
\ndirectors  cannot  be  considered  as  expenditure  incurred
\nwholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business.\t The
\nHigh  Court  as\t well as this Court  accepted  the  findings
\nreached by the Tribunal.  From the facts of that case, it is
\nclear  that the payment of commission made to the  directors
\nwas  not  because  of  any  commercial\texpediency  but\t for
\ncollateral  reasons.   Hence  the rule\tlaid  down  in\tthat
\ndecision is inapplicable to the facts of the present case.
\nIn  the result we allow this appeal, set aside the  judgment
\nof the High Court and answer the question referred under  s.
\n66(2)<\/a> in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.\t The
\nRevenue\t shall\tpay the costs of the appellant both  it\t the
\nHigh Court and in this Court.\n<\/p>\n
G. C.\t\t     Appeal allowanced.\n1105<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972 Equivalent citations: 1973 AIR 520, 1973 SCR (1)1097 Author: K Hegde Bench: Hegde, K.S. PETITIONER: ALUMINIUM CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. Vs. RESPONDENT: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST BENGAL DATE OF JUDGMENT29\/08\/1972 BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. BENCH: HEGDE, K.S. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-266692","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAluminium Corporation Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Aluminium Corporation Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1972-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-28T13:24:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972\",\"datePublished\":\"1972-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T13:24:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\"},\"wordCount\":2720,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\",\"name\":\"Aluminium Corporation Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1972-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T13:24:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Aluminium Corporation Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Aluminium Corporation Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1972-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-28T13:24:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972","datePublished":"1972-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T13:24:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972"},"wordCount":2720,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972","name":"Aluminium Corporation Of India ... vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... on 29 August, 1972 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1972-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T13:24:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/aluminium-corporation-of-india-vs-commissioner-of-income-tax-west-on-29-august-1972#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Aluminium Corporation Of India … vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West … on 29 August, 1972"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266692","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=266692"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/266692\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=266692"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=266692"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=266692"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}