TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1885
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tively. In both these appeals, one common issue is involved and, therefore, both these appeals were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience. ITA No.6503/Del/2012 for AY: 2009-10 2. First we take up the appeal having ITA No. 6503/Del/2012 for assessment year 2009-10. The grounds raised in the appeal are reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred 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 f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s/commission paid to director/employee is not allowable as deduction, if it could have been paid as profit or dividend, rather than bonus or commission. The Assessing Officer noted that no dividend was distributed among the shareholders, which included directors of the company. According to him, the assessee company was avoiding dividend distribution tax by resorting to distribute dividend in the form of bonus or commission. The Ld. CIT-(A), however, allowed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee itself in assessment year 2007-08. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT-(A) is reproduced as under: "...................................................................... It is further noti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entical 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 11 where such details are placed on record. Copy of board resolution is also placed on record. It ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idences were filed before the Assessing Officer in respect of claim that services has been rendered. 3.4 We note that in assessment year 2007-08, no evidences were filed by the assessee in respect of the services rendered by the directors. In the year under consideration also no such evidences have been filed before the lower authorities or before us. Thus, respectfully following the finding of the Tribunal (supra) we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding afresh with the directions identical to what has been given by the Tribunal(supra). Accordingly, the Ground No. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 4. The ground No. 2 of the appeal relates to disallowance of Rs. 65,42,902/- on account of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer held that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions of section 37 of the Act of expenditure laid out wholly & exclusively for the purpose of business and, accordingly, disallowed the said expenses. 4.3 Before the Ld. CIT-(A), the assessee submitted that some of the expenditure was in the nature of salaries, rent and infrastructure cost etc, which was not specifically attributable to any particular client assignment. Regarding the other OPE expenses, the assessee submitted that same are in the nature of travelling, conveyance, hotels stay, courier, telephone etc, which are normally incurred for the client work. The assessee submitted that in some....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed 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 ....