TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 1274
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wable expenditure within the meaning of section 36(1)(ii) as well as section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the 'Act'). 2. During hearing, Shri Atiq Ahmed Ld. Sr. DR defended the addition made by the Assessing Officer by inviting our attention to the observation made in the assessment order. The crux of the argument is identical to the ground raised. 2.1 On the other hand, Shri Anil Bhalla, Ld. Counsel for the assessee defended the impugned order by claiming that the issue in hand is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself for AY 2008-09 for which our attention was invited to paper book pages 18 to 23 of the paper book. This factual matrix was not controverted by the Ld. Sr. DR. 2.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de on account of Club expenses. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) is not justified in deleting the disallowances made on account of Club expenses without appreciating the fact that the club expenses are not related to the business of the assessee." ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,57,311/- u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) is not justified in deleting the addition u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that the payment has been made to direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd orders passed by the revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 IN AYS 2011-12 & 2012-13 5. Ld. DR for the Revenue contended that the ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,82,886/- & Rs. 1,71,57,311/- for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively and relied upon the order passed by the AO. 6. However, to repel the arguments addressed by the ld. DR, the ld. AR for the assessee contended that the issue in controversy has already been decided in favour of the assessee in AY 2008-09 by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 7. Undisputedly, the assessee company has paid commission and ex-gratia to its Directors to the tune of Rs. 1,71,57,311....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 36(1)(iii) are not attracted. 11. So, in view of the decisions rendered by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in case of Metplast Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and in view of the rule of consistency being applied by the Revenue in assessee's own cases, we find no illegality or perversity in the findings returned by ld. CIT (A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,08,82,886/- & Rs. 1,71,57,311/- for AYs 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively on account of payment made to the directors as commission and ex-gratia. So, grounds no.1 & 2 in both the appeals are determined against the Revenue. GROUND NO.3 & 4 IN AY 2011-12 12. AO disallowed an amount of Rs. 1,08,933/- claimed as club expenditure by the assessee on the ground that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ally decided in favour of the assessee. No contrary decision was brought to our notice by either side and more specifically the Revenue. There is observation in the aforesaid orders that the AO has not established that such commission or exgratia paid to directors, who are also shareholders, was payable as profits or dividend of the company, therefore, the same cannot be disallowed u/s 36(1)(ii) of the Act. There is no change in the present assessment year also, therefore, we are expected to follow the orders of earlier years, resultantly, we find no infirmity in the conclusion drawn by the Ld. CIT(A), consequently, this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 3. The next ground raised by the Revenue pertains to deleting the addition of Rs. ....