Tribunal upholds CIT(A)'s decisions on expense disallowances, deems them necessary for business

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions on disallowances related to commission paid to directors, legal and consultancy charges, and late payment of employees' contributions to PF/ESIC. The Tribunal found the expenses reasonable and necessary for business operations, citing precedents to support its decision. The order was issued on 27-10-2017.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of commission paid to managing director and working director.
2. Disallowance of legal and consultancy charges.
3. Disallowance of payment of assessee’s contribution to PF/ESIC made beyond due date.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Disallowance of Commission Paid to Managing Director and Working Director:

The first issue pertains to the disallowance of Rs. 84,00,000/- as commission paid to the managing director and two working directors. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this expenditure under section 36(i)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, arguing that the commission was paid to directors who were also shareholders, and hence, should have been paid as dividends. The CIT(A) deleted the disallowance, relying on the Tribunal's decision for earlier years where similar disallowances were made but later deleted. The Tribunal observed that the commission was part of the directors' remuneration, which was within the limits prescribed by the Companies Act and was reasonable compared to market standards. The Tribunal found that the commission was paid to only two working directors out of 29 shareholders and was justified to ensure accountability and link remuneration to the company's profitability. The Tribunal affirmed the CIT(A)'s order, noting that similar disallowances in previous years were deleted by the Tribunal, and the AO had not challenged the reasonableness of the expenses.

2. Disallowance of Legal and Consultancy Charges:

The second issue involves the disallowance of Rs. 27,05,996/- as legal and consultancy charges incurred due to a legal dispute among directors and shareholders. The AO disallowed these expenses, considering them related to inter-se disputes between two factions of directors. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. Chemosyn Ltd. and the Supreme Court's judgment in CIT vs. Malayalam Plantations Ltd., which held that such expenses are allowable if incurred for the smooth running of the business. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the expenses were incurred to protect the company's interests and ensure its smooth operation, thus qualifying as deductible business expenses.

3. Disallowance of Payment of Assessee’s Contribution to PF/ESIC Made Beyond Due Date:

The third issue concerns the disallowance of payments made towards employees' contribution to PF/ESIC beyond the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes. The AO disallowed these payments, but the CIT(A) noted that the payments were made within the due date for filing the return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s finding, stating that if the payments are made within the due date for filing the return, they are allowable as deductions.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal on all three issues, affirming the CIT(A)'s decisions. The Tribunal relied on precedents and judicial pronouncements to conclude that the disallowances made by the AO were not justified. The Tribunal's order was pronounced in the open court on 27-10-2017.

---