2012 (8) TMI 308

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... me directors which indicated that such category of amounts was not distributed to directors according to the company’s shareholding pattern & receivers of commission had a very small shareholding in the company - as no reason to doubt that what was paid to these working directors was indeed commission falling within the first part of Section 36 (1)(ii) - no substantial question of law.
MR. JUST .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Commissioner (Appeals) was allowed. The Commissioner (Appeals) noticed that for the previous assessment year 2005- 06, an identical disallowance of the commission and bonus amounts paid to the directors were directed to be deleted; the assessing officer had directed them to be added back. 3. The Tribunal in its impugned order confirmed the reasoning of the Appellate Commissioner and relied on the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t there is a slight variation of facts, in the present case, since no dividend was paid out by the company to its shareholders, unlike the previous periods when substantial dividend was paid. It was contended that in such a situation, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was not unwarranted, having regard to the inference that could be drawn legitimately. 5. This Court has carefully con .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X