9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 954X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntive paid to Mr. Anshuman Magazine for AY 2004-05 onwards has been assessed as salary . We find no error in the approach of the Tribunal. We also do not find any merit in the contention of the revenue that the observations of the Tribunal qua the findings of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). Irrespective of the observations of the Tribunal, the fact remains that the reasoning of the CIT (A) for disallowance under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act has been consistently rejected by the Tribunal for the previous years. The identical expenditures stood allowed in the preceding years as also in the succeeding assessment years. We are also unable to find any cogent material that would indicate that the expenditure was not for the purpose of the b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts of the case are that the Respondent is a private limited company, wherein, Mr. Anshuman Magazine holds 24% shares and is also an employee and Director of the assesse-Company. The remaining 76% shares are held by CB Richards Ellis holding. The assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2009, declaring an income of ₹ 31,79,41,751/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and a notice under Section 143(1) was issued. Pursuant thereto, an assessment order was framed on 25.12.2010 under Section 143(3) of the Act whereby inter alia an addition of ₹ 6,64,65,442/- was made by way of disallowance under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. In the appeal preferred by the assessee, CIT (A) upheld the aforenoted disallowance, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no reasoning or finding given by the CIT (A) holding that the commission was not for the business purpose of the assessee. 10. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, revenue has preferred the present appeal. Mr. Shailender Singh, Advocate argues that the Tribunal has erred in reversing the decision of the CIT (A), in as much as, the Tribunal has made wrong observations that CIT (A) has not given a finding to the effect that the excess remuneration was not incurred for the business purpose of the assessee. He submits that the Tribunal has overlooked the reasoning of the CIT (A) for the disallowance under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, where it has been held that the remuneration was to avoid payment of dividend and was not for genuine purposes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se no dividend has been declared by the assessee company whereas it has paid salary and other allowances to its directors which also includes bonus / ex-gratia which is nothing but to reduce the taxable income of the assessee company and to avoid dividend distribution tax. We find the Ld. CIT(A) distinguishing the orders of his procedure and the order of the Tribunal upheld the action of the Assessing officer, the reasons for which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. We find the facts of the impugned assessment year are identical to the facts of the preceding as well as subsequent years. We find the Tribunal in assessee's own case for A. Y. 2007-08, 2008-09 vide ITA No. 709/Del/2012 and 795/Del/2013 order dated 07. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of appeal No. 1 to 1.3 raised by the assessee. xxxx 25. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer made disallowance to ₹ 7,77,69,909/- being excess remuneration paid to the directors. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer, the reason of which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the assessment year 2008-09 amount of ₹ 6,47,27,888/- was disallowed u/s. 36 (1) (ii) of the IT Act, 1961 which included th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 and 2009-10, therefore, it is wrong on the part of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) to hold that remuneration is not allowable since the approval has been obtained after the payment of remuneration to the concerned director. We further find that the above amount was a part of ₹ 6,64,64,442/- which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 36 (1) (ii). However, we have already deleted such disallowances. We find there is no finding of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) that the expenditure incurred is not for the purpose of business of the assessee. We find similar expenditure has been allowed by the Assessing Officer in the preceding and succeeding assessment years. Further the amount has already suffered to tax in the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
