9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O"] has established that excessive payment was made on account of managerial remuneration to Ms. Shallu Jindal? 2.3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in holding that Ms. Shallu Jindal who happens to be close relative of promoter Shri O.P. Jindal „was key personnel in respect of various policy decision which was reflected in minutes of various board meeting' whereas per record available with TPO, it was noticed that Shallu Jindal did not attend even a single Board Meeting and details furnished by the assessee during TP proceeding revealed that Ms. Shallu Jindal 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 la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee to its industrial units after comparing it with the rate of power available in the open market i.e., the price charged by the State Electricity Board while supplying electricity to the industrial consumers. Therefore, the High Court was fully justified in deciding the appeal against the revenue. xxxx xxxx xxxx 78. Before parting with this issue, we may mention that reliance placed by Mr. Rupesh Kumar, learned counsel for the revenue on the definition of the expression "market value" as defined in the explanation below sub-section (6) of Section 80 A of the Act is totally misplaced inasmuch as sub-section (6) was inserted in the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see claiming that the same if not accepted should be adjusted against the purchase cost and consequently leading to the remand of proceedings to the Assessing Officer, we find no justification to entertain the instant appeal. 6. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises in the instant appeal and we find no justification to interfere with the ITAT's impugned order dated 15 January 2019. 7. The appeal fails and shall stand dismissed on the aforesaid terms." 3. Insofar as the issue of excessive remuneration to a related party is concerned, the ITAT has held as follows: "15. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available 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 minute ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... method of allocation adopted by the assessee company. The Tribunal (Third Member decision) in case of DCIT vs. Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P)Ltd. held as under: "39. It is clear from the assessment orders that income shown and expenses claimed by the assessee have been duly allowed in the assessment order. None of the expenditure has been treated as ingenuine or not connected or related to the business carried out by the assessee. In the above background and without any material, and without any justification on the part of the AO, some of the expenses claimed by the assessee were held to be inflated in Unit No. I and were deflated in Unit Nos. II and III. Entire 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
