2018 (11) TMI 1105 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of directors remuneration paid to the directors made AO - AO disallowed the same on the ground that the assessee has shown the entire expenditure incurred under the head work in progress - Held that - The remuneration paid to the directors is excessive or unreasonable. In absence of the same in my considered view the disallowance made cannot be sustained in law. Set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and vacate the disallowance on account of director s remuneration and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee. See CORONATION FLOUR MILLS VERSUS ASSTT. CIT. 2009 (3) TMI 61 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Appeal against addition of directors' remuneration in business expenditure.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Issue of Excessive Directors' Remuneration:
The sole issue in this appeal was the addition of ?2,60,000 as directors' remuneration in the business expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount as the income was not recognized due to project completion method. The CIT(A) restricted the disallowance to ?2,60,000 considering the business income of ?2,00,000 earned from a property transaction. The appellant argued that the remuneration was recurring and should not be included in capital work-in-progress. The ITAT observed that the CIT(A) did not provide material to show the remuneration was excessive or unreasonable as per the criteria set by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Consequently, the disallowance of ?2,60,000 was vacated, and the appeal was allowed.

2. Application of Section 40A(2) of the Act:
The ITAT referred to the case of Corornation Flour Mills vs ACIT to explain the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. It highlighted that the Assessing Officer must determine if the expenditure is excessive or unreasonable based on fair market value, legitimate business needs, or benefits derived. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) did not fulfill the criteria outlined by the Gujarat High Court to justify the disallowance of directors' remuneration. As a result, the disallowance was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the ITAT ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing the need for proper justification for disallowing directors' remuneration under section 40A(2) of the Act. The judgment highlighted the importance of assessing the reasonableness of expenses based on specific criteria to ensure compliance with the law.