TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on facts in law in deleting the addition amounting to Rs. 2,35,00,000/- on account of bonus paid to one of its Director, ignoring the facts that the provision of that section 36(1 )(ii) says that Bonus/Commissioner paid to an employee is not allowable as deduction if it could have been paid as profit or dividend. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts in law in deleting the addition amounting of Rs. 65,42,902/- on a/c of expenses for services to clients u/s 37 ignoring the facts that the assessee has failed to prove that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for business. 3. The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee company was engaged in the business of providing management consultancy services. The assessee filed return of income on 20/09/2009 declaring total income of Rs. 21,44,46,010/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice under section 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') was issued and complied with. The assessment under section 143(3) o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on to the director. However he could not controvert the above factual finding that in the immediately preceding year, the matter was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer by the Tribunal and concurred for restoring the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer in the year under consideration also. 3.3 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. There is no dispute that facts and circumstances in respect of the issue in dispute in the year under consideration before us are exactly identical to the assessment year 2007-08. In the assessment year 2007-08, the Tribunal in ITA No. 4743/Del/2010 has restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer with following observations: "6. In reply, the counsel of the assessee reiterated the contention raised before the Ld. CIT(A). It was further submitted that company is a management Consultancy Firm who rendered the services of consultancy. Shri Sanjay Mehta is one of the main Directors of consulting services being Chartered Accountant. He was also rendering similar services in past and was getting huge remuneration in past. Attention of the Bench was drawn on page 8 to 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see. Before the Assessing Officer, the assessee furnished details of party wise out of pocket expenses(OPE) and submitted that in some of the parties the OPE was positive i.e. receipt is more than the expenditure, and in some of the parties the OPE was negative i.e. receipt is less than the expenditure. The assessee further submitted that wherever the expenditure was more than the receipt, the same was claimed as expenditure. It was explained by the assessee that company was keeping books of accounts, which were duly audited and all the expenses/income was duly vouched. It was also contested by the assessee that the assessee has declared gross receipt of Rs. 82.23 crores and against which the OPE is only Rs. 60.42 Lacs and which constituted only 0.75% of the gross receipt and, thus, should be allowed. 4.1 Further, the assessee submitted that those amounts were debited in the name of concerned party and net amount received was credited after adjustment of both these amounts and the balancing figure was claimed as out of pocket expenses. 4.2 The Assessing Officer was not convinced with the submission of the assessee that the amount was not reflected as debtor and according to h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the assessee referred to page 38 to 44 of the paper book, which contains details of the party wise OPE and submitted that no such disallowance has been made either in the preceding years or subsequent years. The learned counsel also referred on the submission made before the Ld. CIT-(A) and submitted that said expenses should be allowed to the assessee. 4.6 We have heard the rival submission and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Assessing Officer has made the disallowance mainly on the issue that the assessee failed to discharge its onus that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Since, the assessee has not furnished any evidence to support the claim that expenses were incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business, we feel it appropriate to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee may produce all the documents to substantiate its claims to satisfy the conditions under section 37 of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Th....