TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (3) TMI 196
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....T. Rules is not applicable to assessment year under consideration in view of decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs DCIT 328 ITR 81, wherein it is held that Rule 8D is prospective in nature and is applicable from assessment year 2008-09. In view of above, we set aside the orders of authorities below and restore the issue to file of AO with a direction to re-decide the issue after giving due opportunity of hearing to assessee in accordance with law and also considering such evidences as may be placed before him. Hence ground Nos. 1 & 2 of appeal taken by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In ground Nos. 3,4 & 5 of appeal of assessee has disputed order of Ld. CIT(A) in conf....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to substantiate that commission was paid to Directors wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and accordingly, disallowed an amount of Rs. 22,71,543/-. 8. Being aggrieved, assessee filed appeal before First Appellate Authority. Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed action of AO. Hence assessee is in further appeal before Tribunal. 9. During the course of hearing, Ld. AR besides, making submissions as made before authorities below further submitted that assessee paid commission to non whole directors not exceeding 10% of its net profit. It was submitted that since 1988, assessee-company is paying commission to its non-whole time directors as they look after the affairs of assessee company. It was contended that there is no managerial emplo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... management and there is no justification to pay commission to non whole time directors. He submitted that payment of commission to nonwhole time directors is diversion of income without rendering services to assessee company. He further submitted that there is mismatch of TDS deducted by assessee vis-a-viz commission paid to Shri H.C. Bhabha of Rs. 20,75,000/-. He submitted that orders of authorities below may be confirmed. 11. We have carefully considered submissions of Ld. Representatives of parties and orders of authorities below. We have also considered relevant pages of Paper Book to which our attention was drawn. There is no dispute to the fact that assessee passed Resolution in its share holders meeting for payment of commission no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y authorities below by allowing ground Nos. 3 to 5 of appeal of assessee. 12. In ground No. 6 assessee had disputed order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming disallowance of Rs. 6,73,440/- paid to M/s. Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd. 13. The assessee paid an amount of Rs. 6,73,440/- to M/s. Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd. for advisory and consultancy fees. During the course of assessment proceedings assessee justified the said payment vide its letter dt. 27th August, 2009 stating as under: "Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd. is a company run by Mr. Ramesh Narayan, Past President of the INS, Advertising Society of India and a distinguished representative of India on international advertising associations. With his background, Mr. Narayan and his colleagues occa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,440/-. 15. Being aggrieved, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of AO vide paras 12 & 13 which read as under: "12. I have duly considered the submissions of the authorized representative and I find that the AO has disallowed consultancy/advisory fee paid to Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd., as according to him the expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of the assessee. In the assessment order the AO has pointed out that Canco Advertising was paid for services rendered but professional services has no relevance with the business of the assessee company. In the written submission the AR has also submitted that Canco Advertising Pvt. Ltd. gave several proposals to the assessee....