SATYANARAYANA RAO, J.

These two referred cases relate to the same assessee. R. C. No. 44 of 1953 relates to income-tax, and R. C. No. 53 of 1952 relates to excess profits tax. Questions Nos. 2 and 3 are common in the two referred cases, and question No. 1 in R. C. No. 44 of 1953 is :-

"Whether in allowing a deduction under Section 10(2)(xv) of the Income-tax Act the Income-tax Officer is precluded from going into the question whether the amount was paid wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the assessee's business." *

Question No. 1 in the connected reference is :-

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that in accordance with the terms of the letter dated 17th April, 1940, and 30th March, 1943, and the conduct of parties, the excess profits tax payable by the assessee should be deducted from the profits before the commission of 12 1/2 per cent. payable to N. M. R. V. Mahadevan is calculated." *

Question No. 2 is :-

"Whether there was any material before the Tribunal to hold that the commission payment to N. M. R. V. Mahadevan at 12 1/2 per cent, before deduction of excess profits tax or business profits tax was not wholly and exclusively laid out for t