Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (9) TMI 543 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance by invoking provisions of section 36 (1) (ii) - amount of commission and exgratia paid to one of the director Sh. Anshuman Magazine who is a share holder of this company holding 24% share holding - HELD THAT:- Since the commission paid to Sh. Anshuman Magazine, director of the assessee company was deleted by the CIT(A) in the preceding years and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue has not been challenged by the revenue in the preceding two years and further considering the fact that the Assessing Officer in the orders passed u/s. 143 (3) for subsequent assessment years from 2010-11 to 2014-15 has allowed similar commission/ incentive, therefore, following the rule of consistency, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance u/s. 36 (1) (ii) is called for in the instant case. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and allow the grounds of assessee Excessive claim of remuneration - as alleged statutory approval were not obtained by the assessee - submission of the assessee that in the assessment year 2008-09 amount as disallowed u/s. 36 (1) (ii) which included the amount of excess remuneration, therefore, again the same amount cannot be brought to tax in the impugned assessment year - HELD THAT:- We find merit in the above argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. From the details furnished by the assessee, it is seen that the amount of ₹ 3,04,30,061/- was a part of the amount of ₹ 6,47,27,888/- being the amount of disallowance u/s. 36 (1) (ii) for A. Y.2 008-09. We, therefore, restore this part of the disallowance to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and if the above amount was a part of disallowance made u/s. 36 (1) (ii) then it relates to A. Y. 2008-09 and cannot be disallowed during the current year. AO shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Excess remuneration paid to Sh. Anshuman Magazine - necessary approval seeked - HELD THAT:- We find the assessee has obtained approval of the competent authority though on 18.07.2011 i.e. much after the date on which such remuneration has been paid. In our opinion although the approval has been obtained after date of payment, however it will relate back to the year under consideration. Since the approval was granted by the competent authority vide letter dated 18.07.2011 for three financial at a time i.e. financial year 2007- 08, 2008-09 and 2009-10, therefore, it is wrong on the part of the AO 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. 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. No finding of the AO and CIT(A) that the expenditure incurred is not for the purpose of business of the assessee. Further the amount has already suffered to tax in the hands of Sh. Anshuman Magazine. In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion that the disallowance is not justified under the facts and circumstances of the case.
|