OLYMPIC ZIPPERS LIMITED,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD 1(2)(1), MEERUT

ITA 8607/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 January 2026AY 2015-16Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the issue of disallowance under section 40A(2)(b) concerning director's remuneration. The revenue failed to provide market rate comparisons to justify the disallowance, a point supported by a precedent case.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) related to assessment year 2015-16. The appeal involved proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act. The assessee initially raised grounds regarding disallowance of expenditure and depreciation, but these were withdrawn.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of director's remuneration under section 40A(2)(b) was justified without comparing with market rates, and whether the grounds related to disallowance of expenditure and depreciation should be pressed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 40A(2)(b)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 21.01.2026Pronounced: 21.01.2026

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)- 1, Visakhapatnam’s DIN and order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1082760744(1), dated 19.11.2025 involving proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

Learned counsel states very fairly that the assessee does not wish to press for his twin substantive grounds involving disallowance of expenditure and depreciation made by both the lower authorities after allegedly holding personal use element therein. Rejected as not pressed.

3.

Next comes the remaining issue of section 40A(2)(b) disallowance of Rs.5.16 lakhs made by both the lea

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 40A(2)(b)

All 1,172 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40A(2)(b) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →