Skip to content


Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Hoechst Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectDirect Taxation
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberI.T.A. No. 105 of 1983
Reported in(1984)43CTR(Bom)339
AppellantCommissioner of Income Tax
RespondentHoechst Dyes and Chemicals Ltd.
Excerpt:
- code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 41: [ swatanter kumar, cj, smt ranjana desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate when an offence is committed in his presence. if the legislature has taken care of providing such specific power..........obviously be decided in favour of the assessee and there is no point in directing the tribunal to refer that question to us for determination.3. as far as question no. 2 is concerned, we find that the tribunal has referred to its two earlier orders in respect of earlier assessments in the case of the same assessee and in those orders all the evidence produced including the resolution passed by the board of directors, authorising the payment of secret commission and the conditions in the trade of selling dyes and chemicals, which the tribunal concluded was a highly competitive trade. it is in view of this evidence that the tribunal has accepted the payment of the secret commission and allowed the same as a deduction. this finding is essentially a finding of fact. it is not sought to be.....
Judgment:
ORDER

: Kania, J. - This is an application u/s. 256(2) of the IT Act, 1961, for directing the ITAT to refer to this court for determination of the two questions set out therein and for stating a case for that purpose.

2. As far as question No. 1 is concerned, we find that the same is covered by the decision of this Court in CIT, Bombay City-VI v. Sadabhakti Prakashan Printing Press (P) Ltd. (1980) 125 ITR 376 . In view of this decision, that question must obviously be decided in favour of the assessee and there is no point in directing the Tribunal to refer that question to us for determination.

3. As far as question No. 2 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal has referred to its two earlier orders in respect of earlier assessments in the case of the same assessee and in those orders all the evidence produced including the resolution passed by the Board of Directors, authorising the payment of secret commission and the conditions in the trade of selling Dyes and Chemicals, which the Tribunal concluded was a highly competitive trade. It is in view of this evidence that the Tribunal has accepted the payment of the secret commission and allowed the same as a deduction. This finding is essentially a finding of fact. It is not sought to be contended by the department that the finding is based on no evidence at all or is perverse. Hence we see no reason to direct the Tribunal to refer that question to us for determination.

Rule discharged with no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //