High CourtsDivision Bench(1992) 11 KL CK 0035

Commissioner of Income Tax vs Srivilas Cashew Co.

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 6 November 1992 · Citation: (1993) 199 ITR 686

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.S. Paripoornan, J · K.K. Usha, J
CASE NUMBER
C.M.P. No. 49 of 1992 in Income Tax Reference No. 171 of 1988

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 270 words
1.

This is an application u/s 261 of the Income tax Act, 1961, for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court from the judgment of this court in Income tax Reference No. 171 of 1988, dated August 12, 1991 Srivilas Cashew Co. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, ). Construing the provisions of Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, this court took the view that, in order to get the benefit of weighted deduction, it is not necessary that the agent of the assessee outside India should act exclusively for the assessee. The commission paid to the agents outside India would amount to expenditure incurred by the assesses to maintain an agency outside India for the promotion of the sales of the assessee''s goods outside India.

2.

It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner herein that the Karnataka High Court has taken a different view in Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Mysore Sales International Ltd., and, therefore, it is necessary to have an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court on this question. Learned counsel took us through the judgment of the Karnataka High Court. We find that a contrary view has been taken by the Karnataka High Court.

3.

In the light of the above, we are convinced that this is a case where it is necessary to have an authoritative decision of the Supreme Court on the question relating to the interpretation of Section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income tax Act, 1961. We, therefore, certify that this case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court u/s 261 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.