TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1201
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....0,000/- being the commission paid to the Managing Director of the assessee company, u/s 36(1)(ii) of the I. T. Act. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, after, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal." 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee in the year under consideration declared an income of Rs. 3,80,63,020/- which was processed u/s 143(1) and subsequently after issuance of notice etc u/s 143(2) and 142(1) etc. it was subjected to scrutiny assessment. The record shows that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of leather garments/ goods, export trading of skins and other leather goods wherein t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uo moto disallowance made by the assessee of Rs. 97,604/- u/s 14A on facts could not be accepted. Accordingly it was his submission that relying upon the proposition of law as laid down by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Maxopp Investment Ltd. vs CIT [2012] 347 ITR 272 (Del.) and followed by another judgements dated 25.11.2014 in the case of CIT vs Taikisha Engineering Ltd. dated 25.11.2015 reported in 2014-TIOL-2239-HC-Del-IT and M/s Jindal Photo Ltd. vs DCIT [2011-TIOL-653-ITAT-DEL] the appeal may be dismissed. Relying further upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in assessee's own case in 2008-09 wherein it was held that Rule 8D cannot be applied for want of recording of requisite satisfaction by the AO it was submitted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... be made. The assessee placed reliance upon the order of the ITAT in 2003-04 assessment year. However not convinced with the claim, disallowance of the said amount was made by the AO. The issue was agitated in appeal before the CIT(A) who proceeded to delete the additions made. 7. Aggrieved by this the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. The Ld. Sr. DR placed reliance upon the assessment order. The Ld. AR apart from relying upon the impugned order also submitted that the view taken by the ITAT in 2002-03 assessment year has consistently been followed by the ITAT in the intervening years. It was submitted that infact the order of the ITAT in 2003-04 assessment years, was upheld by the Hon'ble High Court also. In order to establish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Director's commission u/s 36(1)(ii), we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), who in turn has relied on Tribunal's order in assessee's own case for A. Y.2002-03 (supra). Facts and circumstances being same, we see no infirmity in the order of CIT(A), which is upheld. This ground is dismissed." 9. In reply, the Sr. DR relied upon the assessment order. However, no distinction on fact or law was brought to the notice of the Bench. 10. We have heard the rival issues and perused the material available on record. The record shows that disallowance as per past practice was made by the AO. The reply of the assessee before the AO it is seen citing order of the ITAT on identical issue in 2003-04 Assessment Year relying upon the statutory provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-03 in the case of appellant company, wherein the Hon'ble ITAT has deleted the additions made by the AO on account of. Disallowance of commission paid to Mrs. Malati Kanoria, director of Rs. 7,72,712/- u/s section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act. The relevant extract of the aforesaid order of the Hon'ble ITAT is reproduce below for reference:- "8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. The commission is disallowed on the following reasons: - i. the assessee failed to explain the nature of services rendered for payment of commission; and ii. the commission was payable by way of profit or dividend and, hence now allowance u/s 36(1)(ii). 9. We find that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or remuneration. In accordance with the provisions of section 36(1)(ii) any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for services rendered where such sum would, not have been payable to him as profit or dividend if it had not been paid as bonus or commission is allowable. The sum paid to the directors is as an employee of the company. The bonus or commission payable for the services rendered and are in accordance with the terms or employment. The directors are not only shareholders of the company. Out of the total share capital of Rs. 73,50,000/-, Mrs. Malati Kanodia holds share worth Rs. 15,02,000/- only. Shri Rajeev Bohra is not even a shareholder. Therefore, it cannot be said that if the commission was not paid, such sum would have....