IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 
 . 
         ITA 961/2010  
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX                          ..... Appellant 
 Through: Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate. 
 . 
 versus 
 . 
 AJAY INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION                       ..... Respondent 
 Through: Mr. O.S. Bajpai, Senior Advocate with 
 Mr. B.K. Singh, Advocate. 
 . 
 . 
 CORAM: 
 HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN 
 . 
 O R D E R 
                        29.07.2010 
 Heard Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. O.S. Bajpai, 
 learned senior counsel for respondent. 
 In this appeal preferred under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 
 (for brevity ?the Act), the legal sustainability of the order dated 29th May, 
 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short ?tribunal?) is called 
 in question. 
 . 
 ITA 961/2010                                                        page 1 of 3. 
 . 
 . 
 The singular question that arose before the tribunal was whether the 
 assessee was entitled to deduction for the commission paid by it to the 
 authorised agents who were dealing with the matters pertaining to Government 
 tender. 
 On a perusal of the order passed by the tribunal it is perceptible that the 
 tribunal has referred to the order of the CIT(A) who in turn has referred to the 
 earlier assessments orders for the years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 
 2002-2003 and granted deduction.  The tribunal took note of the fact that the 
 payment of commission as a matter of fact was not disputed.  It was contended 
 before the tribunal that the same was not admissible under Section 37 of the 
 Act. It is worth noting that the tribunal has not only referred to the orders 
 passed by the CIT(A), but also referred to the details submitted by the assessee 
 and come to hold that the said deduction is allowable. 
 Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for appellant contended that the payment 
 of commission could be allowed as a business expenditure but there has to be 
 deduction at source. 
 Mr. O.S. Bajpai, learned senior counsel for respondent submitted  that  in 
 the notice inviting tender, there is a stipulation that 
 ITA 961/2010                                                               page 
 2 of 3. 
 . 
 the Principal or the authorised agent can negotiate and carry on the details 
 afterwards.  It is also submitted by Mr. Bajpai that the question of deduction 
 at source was never raised by the revenue before any of the authorities. 
 In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the order 
 passed by the tribunal totally rests on facts and there is no question of law 
 involved. 
 In the result, the appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed without 
 any order as to costs. 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 CHIEF JUSTICE 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 MANMOHAN, J 
 JULY  29, 2010 
 js 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 . 
 ITA 961/2010                                                        page 3 of 3. 
 . 
 9 
 $