TMI Blog2011 (7) TMI 1276X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act are clearly applicable in this case. 2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 12,00,000/- on account of disallowance of insurance premium due to Aviva Life Insurance Company ignoring that the deduction is admissible only if the amount of premium is deposited in the previous year which is not the case here. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting addition of ₹ 16,245/- on account of disallowance of extra depreciation on computer peripherals/accessories ignoring that as per the IT Rules 60% depreciation is allowable only on computer and computer software and not on computer periphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capital Shipbrokers Ltd., London; that he was made the Managing Director of the company; that he had 10% share-holding and was to receive ₹ 20,76,925/- as dividend; that as a shareholder employee, he had no vested right to receive dividend unless and until it came from the company; that the remuneration paid to him was salary for services rendered, including bonus and commission; that the commission of ₹ 19,44,000/- pertained to house rent allowance @ ₹ 1,62,000/- per month, forming part of his salary; that the bonus was determined by the other venture programes control 90% holding , on his performance; that the payment of remuneration of ₹ 2.47 crores, including bonus and commission was justifiable, even as per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y have been paid as dividend to the shareholders. As such, there is no applicability of section 36(1)(ii) of the Act, as held in Bony Polymers P. Ltd. (supra). Further, even the Department recognizes that the fact of payment alone is essential and the excessiveness thereof can be gone into only under the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. Herein, the AO has not invoked the provisions of section 40A(2) of the Act. The commission paid to the Director was undoubtedly part of his remuneration, as held in Gestetner Duplicators Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT , 117 ITR 1(SC), which has been relied on in Bony Polymers P. Ltd. (supra). 7. Therefore, ground No.1 is found to be without merit and is rejected as such. 8. Coming to ground No.2, the AO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y made within the grace period, i.e., 9.4.07. 12. In this regard, the period of policy was from 1.4.06 to 31.3.07. The ld. CIT(A) has correctly observed that the amount became due in the year under reference. The said amount was undoubtedly due and asserted. It was on considering these circumstances that the ld. CIT(A) correctly deleted the disallowance. 13. Therefore, ground No.2 is rejected. 14. Concerning ground No.3, the assessee claimed depreciation @ 60% on computer accessories and peripherals. The AO, however, observed that only computers and computer software are eligible for depreciation @ 60% and that the said period cannot be extended to computer accessories and peripherals. The AO, as such, restricted depreciation on su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
