TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>ITAT Upholds CIT(A) Decisions on Commission & Reopening; Sections 36(1)(ii) & 147 Applied</h1> <h3>Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus M/s Convertech Equipment Pvt. Ltd.,</h3> Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Versus M/s Convertech Equipment Pvt. Ltd., - TMI Issues:1. Disallowance of commission paid to directors under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Validity of reopening assessment under Section 147 and subsequent annulment of order under Section 143(3)/147.Analysis:Issue 1: Disallowance of Commission Paid to DirectorsIn the first issue, the Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of commission paid to directors by the CIT(A), arguing that it was not an allowable expenditure under Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision based on similar cases from AY 2004-05 and 2005-06. The ITAT noted that the commission paid to the directors was based on performance and commercial expediency, leading to business growth and increased profits. The ITAT found no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the commission was wholly and exclusively related to the business's performance.Issue 2: Validity of Reopening Assessment under Section 147The second issue involved the validity of reopening the assessment under Section 147 by the Revenue. The Revenue contended that the assessment was reopened due to the non-allowability of commission paid to directors under Section 36(1)(ii). However, the ITAT disagreed with the Revenue's argument, citing the proviso to Section 147, which restricts reopening assessments after four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there is a failure to disclose material facts by the assessee. The ITAT found that in this case, there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts. Referring to a relevant High Court decision, the ITAT concluded that the reopening of the assessment was not valid and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to cancel the reopening.In summary, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decisions in both issues, dismissing the Revenue's appeals and the assessee's cross-objection as infructuous. The judgments were pronounced on 25th May 2012.
TaxTMI 