Bogus purchases and managerial remuneration: only profit element is taxable, while approval issues may require fresh verification.

Managerial remuneration paid above the alleged Central Government-sanctioned limit was treated as requiring fresh factual verification because the claimed board and governmental approvals had not been examined, so the matter was restored to the appellate authority. In alleged bogus purchase cases where sales were not disputed and purchase bills were viewed as accommodation entries, only the profit element embedded in the purchases was considered taxable, not the entire purchase value. The estimation made on that basis was sustained, with correction of the purchase figure to the amount reflected in the record, and the Revenue's challenge on that issue failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disallowance of managerial remuneration paid in excess of the amount said to be sanctioned by the Central Government required interference. (ii) Whether, in respect of alleged bogus purchases, the entire purchase amount was liable to addition or only the profit element embedded therein.

Issue (i): Whether the disallowance of managerial remuneration paid in excess of the amount said to be sanctioned by the Central Government required interference.

Analysis: The disallowance was made on the basis that the payment exceeded the sanctioned limit and was therefore not allowable. The record also indicated a claim that the payment was linked to business performance and supported by board and governmental approval. Since the lower appellate authority had not examined the claimed approval and its effect, the matter required factual verification.

Conclusion: The issue was restored to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh verification.

Issue (ii): Whether, in respect of alleged bogus purchases, the entire purchase amount was liable to addition or only the profit element embedded therein.

Analysis: The purchases were treated as bogus on the basis of information from the investigation and sales tax authorities, but the sales were not disputed. In such circumstances, the purchase bills could be treated as accommodation entries and the addition was confined to the profit element embedded in the transactions. The estimate made by the lower appellate authority was sustained, with correction of the purchase figure to the actual amount noticed in the record.

Conclusion: The addition was restricted to the profit element in the bogus purchases, and the Revenue's challenge was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The common order was maintained on the bogus purchase issue, while the remuneration issue was sent back for verification, resulting in a partial success for the assessee and dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Where sales are not disputed and purchase bills are found to be accommodation entries, only the profit element embedded in such purchases is taxable, not the entire purchase amount.

---