https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392510 Where commission and excess remuneration paid to a director had already been allowed in earlier years and accepted in subsequent assessments, the Revenue's challenge was rejected on the rule of consistency. The court found the claim identical to the assessee's own prior cases and held that the record disclosed no cogent material to show the expenditure was not for business purposes. In these circumstances, the earlier reasoning under Section 36(1)(ii) did not justify interference, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's Section 260A appeal was dismissed. en-us Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392510 Where commission and excess remuneration paid to a director had already been allowed in earlier years and accepted in subsequent assessments, the Revenue's challenge was rejected on the rule of consistency. The court found the claim identical to the assessee's own prior cases and held that the record disclosed no cogent material to show the expenditure was not for business purposes. In these circumstances, the earlier reasoning under Section 36(1)(ii) did not justify interference, no substantial question of law arose, and the Revenue's Section 260A appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 13 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=392510