TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (2) TMI 954
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 4. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. C.M. No. 5766/2020 (delay in re-filing) 5. By this application the applicant seeks condonation of delay of 87 days in re-filing the appeal. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned. 6. The application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. ITA 96/2020 7. The Appellant - Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, has preferred the present appeal under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act (hereinafter 'the Act') for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10, assailing the order passed by the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') dated 28.06.2019 in ITA No.3527/DEL....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT (A) also held that the excess remuneration paid was without the approval of the Central Government and was, therefore, liable to be disallowed as the same was not for the business purpose of the assessee. On further appeal, ITAT overturned the decision of CIT (A) in favour of the assessee. It was held that in assessee's own case for AY 2007-08 and 200809 in respective ITA Nos. 709/Del/2012 and 795/Del/2013, the Tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2016 had deleted such disallowances. Revenue had not preferred any appeal against the order of the Tribunal, and for the subsequent years from 2010-11 to 2014-15, the Assessing Officer had passed orders under Section 143(3) of the Act and allowed the payment of commission/ incentive. The Tribunal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cted herein below: "13. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the authorities below and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We have also considered the various decisions cited before us. We find the Assessing Officer in the instant case invoking the provisions of section 36 (1) (ii) of the IT Act, 1961, made addition of Rs. 6,64,65,442/- to the total income of the assessee being the amount of commission and exgratia paid to one of the director Sh. Anshuman Magazine who is a share holder of this company holding 24% share holding. According to the Assessing Officer similar additions made in AY 2007-08 and 2008-09 were deleted by the CIT(A) but the department had not accepted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....84/- for A. Y. 2014-15 in the order passed u/s 143 (3) also could not be controverted by the Ld. DR. Since the commission paid to Sh. Anshuman Magazine, director of the assessee company was deleted by the CIT(A) in the preceding years and the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal filed by the revenue has not been challenged by the revenue in the preceding two years and further considering the fact that the Assessing Officer in the orders passed u/s. 143 (3) for subsequent assessment years from 2010-11 to 2014-15 has allowed similar commission/ incentive, therefore, following the rule of consistency, we are of the considered opinion that no disallowance u/s. 36 (1) (ii) of the IT Act is called for in the instant case. We, therefore, se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....08-09 and cannot be disallowed during the current year. The Assessing Officer shall decide the issue as per fact and law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We hold and direct accordingly. 26. So far as the amount of Rs. 4,73,39,848/- being the excess. Remuneration paid to Sh. Anshuman Magazine is concerned, we find the assessee has obtained approval of the competent authority though on 18.07.2011 i.e. much after the date on which such remuneration has been paid. In our opinion although the approval has been obtained after date of payment, however it will relate back to the year under consideration. Since the approval was granted by the competent authority vide letter dated 18.07.2011 for three financial at....