Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2020 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 954 - DELHI HIGH COURTDisallowance u/s 36(1)(ii) - payment of incentive / commission to the shareholder who held 99.99% shares of the assessee and but for the resolution to pay the commission, the sum so paid would have been passed on to him as dividend - HELD THAT:- Identical claims in respect of the incentive paid to Mr. Anshuman Magazine, Director of the assessee-Company, which stood allowed for the previous years, the Tribunal has allowed the claim of the assessee [2016 (4) TMI 82 - ITAT DELHI] . The revenue has indeed accepted the claim for the preceding years as well as for the subsequent years and therefore, the incentive 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 business of the assessee. This factual background does not give rise to any substantial question of law for our consideration.
|