9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been made in the earlier years as held comparison done by the AO between the remuneration paid by the assessee company on account of managerial remuneration to Ms. Shallu Jindal with the remuneration paid by Essar Steel Ltd to Sh. Ashutosh Agarwala is not proper as well considering the facts that the assessee company is a profit making venture whereas Essar Steel Ltd. is incurring losses. It should also be noted that the assessee company has also complied with all the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, relating to the payment of managerial remuneration to its managerial personnel appointed and the said payment of managerial remuneration has also been approved by the Board of Directors. The reference made to Circular No. 6P dated 08.07.1968 issued by the CBDT is apt in the present case. Thus, the Assessing Officer was not correct in making addition on account of managerial remuneration. Allocation of common expenses u/s 80-IA to eligible and non-eligible unit on the basis of ratio between eligible and non-eligible units - HELD THAT:- As decided in [ 2024 (1) TMI 1252 - DELHI HIGH COURT] from perusal of the Assessment Order/Order of the TPO/Directions of the DRP, in the present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l was active in social commitments. The ITAT failed to appreciate that the assessee did not submit details with respect to Ms. Shallu Jindal called by the TPO during TP proceeding. Perversity of fact has been held to be question of law? 2.4. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT was justified in not allowing the allocation of common expenses under section 80-IA of the Act to eligible and non-eligible unit on the basis of ratio between eligible and non-eligible units? 2.5. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITAT erred in facts and law in allowing the bank guarantee commission under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act invoking the provision laid down by the Notification No. 56/2012 no deduction of TDS on certain cases, issued by CBDT vide F, No. 275/53/2012-IT(B)]SO 3069, dated 31.12.2012? 2. Insofar as Question no. 2.1 and dealing with the disallowance of the deduction under Section 80-IA(8) of the Act is concerned, we note that the issue would stand concluded in light of the judgment rendered by us in ITA 797 of 2019. Dealing with an identical challenge, we had while dismissing that appeal, held as follows: 2. In so far as the issues raised in q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statute with effect from 01.04.2009 whereas in the present case we are dealing with the assessment year 2001-2002 when this provision was note even borne. 3. We are apprised that when an identical question was raised in ITA 208/2019 inter partes, the Court had on a perusal of the view taken by the ITAT found that no justification existed for the question in that respect being framed or considered. We, in this regard take note of the order dated 06.03.2019 passed in ITA 208/2019 and consequently observe that proposed question (a) would not give rise to any substantial question of law. 4. That only leaves us to consider whether to admit the appeal on question (b). In so far as the question on reject coal and iron ore is concerned, the ITAT has on a due consideration of the rival submissions which were addressed come to the following conclusions:- 6. On this aspect, Ld. AR brought to our notice that this issue was dealt with at length by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the order dated 24/4/2018 in ITA No. 4449/de1/2010 and batch for the Assessment Years 2006-07 to 2009-10 in assessee's own case wherein the assessee advanced an alternative plea that if the sale proceeds a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable on record. It is pertinent to note that the partial additions on account of managerial remuneration amounting to Rs. 8,22,798 which was paid to Ms. Shallu Jindal s contractual advisory service to AE and other services provided by her were not disputed by the Revenue at any point of time. The same is already taxed in the hands of Ms. Shallu Jindal. The Ld. AR pointed out through the documents that she is the director of the company and is a key personnel in respect of various policy decisions which was reflected in minutes of all board meetings. The submission of the Ld. AR was that the basis for disallowance is not sustainable because the competitive figures have no bearing on the present assessee. From the records it can be seen that the remuneration paid to director has not been disallowed in past years and therefore the submission of the Ld. AR that the rule of consistency has to be followed in the present assessment year as well. The case laws relied upon by Ld. AR of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court is relevant to that extent and support the case of the assessee. The comparison done by the Assessing Officer between the remuneration paid by the assessee company to Ms. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of AO in both the assessment years is based on surmises and conjectures. The learned CIT(A) had passed a fair, rationale and just order. There was no scope to interfere with the impugned orders as rightly held by the learned AM in his proposed order. On similar facts claim in earlier years was allowed to the assessee. . 43. I see some parallel between the facts of the above cited case and case in hand, because profit was disclosed in Unit Nos. II and III on which deduction under s. 80-1 was claimed and no profit was disclosed in Unit No. I on which no such deduction was permissible and expenses in aforesaid Unit No. I were much higher than in the other two units. It was probable that more expenses were claimed in Unit No. I and some of the expenses of Unit Nos. II and III were diverted and claimed in Unit No. I. But no presumption under the law could be raised that expenses were so diverted. The assessee has produced accounts and details and, therefore, correct position could have been ascertained from the material statement of relevant persons including management and staff of the assessee could have been examined. But without any investigation and without collecting any mat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
