https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756261 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal on two issues. First, commission paid to director was held allowable under section 36(1)(ii) as the assessee provided substantial evidence of actual services rendered and resultant benefits to the company. AO's reliance on Dalal and Broacha case was found factually distinguishable, and no concrete evidence was provided to show payment was made to avoid DDT. Second, weighted deduction claim under section 35(2AB) was allowed as AO's sole reliance on DSIR report without considering detailed books and CA certification violated natural justice principles. en-us Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:15:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756261 ITAT Ahmedabad allowed the assessee's appeal on two issues. First, commission paid to director was held allowable under section 36(1)(ii) as the assessee provided substantial evidence of actual services rendered and resultant benefits to the company. AO's reliance on Dalal and Broacha case was found factually distinguishable, and no concrete evidence was provided to show payment was made to avoid DDT. Second, weighted deduction claim under section 35(2AB) was allowed as AO's sole reliance on DSIR report without considering detailed books and CA certification violated natural justice principles. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 15 Jul 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=756261