TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 1151X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been paid - Held that:- An identical question had engaged the attention of this Court for the Assessment Year 2005-06 [2014 (8) TMI 1091 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as held that reasoning of the Assessing Officer has been rightly rejected by the Tribunal. It is also noticeable that tax on dividend payment payable by the respondent company was much less than the tax payable by the individual assessee on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the commission paid to Mr. Renu Munjal, the Managing Director/shareholder of the assessee, was sought to be disallowed. 2. At the outset, it was noticed that an identical question had engaged the attention of this Court for the Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 305/2014 (decided on 12th August, 2014). The Court had then stated as follows:- .......The Assessing Officer had invoked Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x on dividend. However, she has paid tax on the commission earned. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. 3. We see no reason to differ from the above decision. Since considering the facts are identical, following the above order, it is held that no question of law arises. 4. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
