Related-party expenditure must match market comparables, while director-linked non-compete payments fall under the special remuneration ceiling.

Lease rent paid to a related firm was required to be tested against market value and reliable comparables for purposes of section 40A(2)(a); in the absence of any dependable comparable instance, the basis for treating the rent as excessive was found unsound and the addition was deleted. A non-compete payment to directors was treated as a commercial revenue outlay, but because the payment conferred a benefit on directors, the special rule governing director-related expenditure had to prevail over the general anti-avoidance provision. The amount was therefore to be aggregated with directors' remuneration and examined against the applicable ceiling under the special provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the addition made on account of lease rent paid to the related firm was sustainable as excessive or unreasonable expenditure under section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (ii) Whether the payment made under the non-compete agreement with the directors could be disallowed under section 40A(2)(a) or had to be examined under section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Issue (i): Whether the addition made on account of lease rent paid to the related firm was sustainable as excessive or unreasonable expenditure under section 40A(2)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: The lease rent had to be tested against market value and comparable instances. The rate adopted by the assessee covered both the annexe building and the building on Subramaniam Road, and the record did not furnish any reliable comparable case to show that the rate was excessive. The basis adopted by the lower authority was therefore found unsound.

Conclusion: The addition of Rs. 2 lakhs was deleted and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the payment made under the non-compete agreement with the directors could be disallowed under section 40A(2)(a) or had to be examined under section 40(c)(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

Analysis: Expenditure incurred to restrain competing business was treated as a commercial and revenue outlay. However, since the payment conferred a benefit on the directors, the special provision dealing with director-related expenditure had to prevail over the general provision on excessive or unreasonable payments. The amount therefore had to be aggregated with the directors' remuneration and tested under the ceiling prescribed by the special provision.

Conclusion: The disallowance could not stand under section 40A(2)(a), but the payment was required to be examined under section 40(c)(i) and appropriate disallowance was directed; the issue was not wholly in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The first addition was deleted, while the second payment was held to fall for examination under the special rule governing director-related expenditure, with the matter sent back for consequential disallowance if the ceiling was exceeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an expenditure confers a benefit on a director, the special provision governing director-related payments overrides the general provision on excessive or unreasonable expenditure, and payments restraining competition may be treated as revenue expenditure if commercially justified.

---