AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

341 ITR 563High Court2012#3373 most cited

What is AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT authority for?

Bonus or commission paid to directors for services rendered as part of their terms of employment is allowable as a deduction, and Section 36(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act does not apply in such cases.

35

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,315 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2025.

Also referred to as

AMD Metplast · section 36(1)(ii) · bonus to directors · commission to directors · services rendered · terms of employment · deductible expense · business expenditure

Also reported as

269 CTR 44

Sections most often in play

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 143(3A)Section 143(3B)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 36(1)(ii)

Issues it is cited on

section 36(1)(ii)section 36(1)section 36salaryappeal before the tribunalprescribedpersoncompanysection 14indiatotal incomebusiness

Judgments citing AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rohini Minerals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 980/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) DCIT Vs. M/s Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN :AACCR0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S.K.Gupta, AR रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 12/02/2024 घोर्णध क…

DCIT., Circle 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Rohini Minerals Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue for the A

ITA 1080/HYD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) Dcit Vs. M/S Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan :Aaccr0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri S.K.Gupta, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri B Bala Krishna, Cit-Dr Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.Ar

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Gupta, ARFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 148A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri K.Narasimha Chary, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.980/Hyd/2024, 1079/Hyd/2024 & 1080/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19, 2014-15 & 2015-16) DCIT Vs. M/s Rohini Minerals Circle-3(1) Private Limited Hyderabad Hyderabad [PAN :AACCR0773N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri S.K.Gupta, AR रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR Shri Srinath Sadanala, Sr.AR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of Hearing: 12/02/2024 घोर्णध क…

Src Aviation Pvt.Ltd vs. Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr

ITA/492/2019HC Delhi13 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 15Section 260ASection 36

…ve been payable to him as profits or dividendifit had not been paid as bonus or commission.” 18. The interpretation of Section 36 (1) (ii) of the Act has come up for discussion before this Court in several cases including AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT 341 ITR 563(Del) and CIT v. Career Launcher India Ltd.358 ITR179(Del). This is a digitally signed Judgement. NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/001342 ITA 492/2019 & ITA 41/2020 Page 6 of 12 19. In Loyal Motor Service Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax (1946) 14 ITR…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 vs. Bmo Advisors Pvt. Ltd

ITA/82/2022HC Delhi11 Apr 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA

Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40ASection 40A(2)(b)

…ITA No.82/2022 Page 1 of 6 $~263 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 82/2022 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Sanjay Kumar, senior standing counsel. versus BMO ADVISORS PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: None. % Date of Decision: 11th April, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SHARMA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 25th February, 2020 passed in ITA No. 9626/Del/2019 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant states that no justification was give…

M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range - 6, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2546/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Mar 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri B. R. Baskaranassessment Year : 2016-17 M/S. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. Jcit, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. Pan : Aaecs 6424 R Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2019 Of Cit(A), Bengaluru -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Ground No.1 Raised By The Assessee Is General & Calls For No Specific Adjudication. Grounds Nos.2 & 3 Raised By The Assessee Is With Regard To The Issue Whether The Gain On Sale / Assignment Of Intellectual Property Rights (Ipr) Is Assessable To Tax At All & If So Assessable To Tax Whether It Has To Be Assessed To Tax Under The Head “Income From Business Or Profession” Or “Capital Gain”. Page 2 Of 31

For Appellant: Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B. R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment year : 2016-17 M/s. Sasken Technologies Limited, Vs. JCIT, No.139/25, Ring Road, Domlur, Special Range – 6, Bengaluru-560071. Bengaluru. PAN : AAECS 6424 R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri. Padam Chand Khincha, CA Respondent by : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 09.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 16.03.2022 O R D E R Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.11.20…

ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Tcp Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by Revenue is partly allowed for

ITA 3069/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mrs. S.Vidya, C.A ""For Respondent: 22.07.2021
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(ii)Section 40

…such case, the ld.CIT(A), having powers co-terminus as that of the AC, alternatively, ought to have subjected the said payment to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act. 3 3.3 Having relied on the decision in the case of M/s AMD Metaplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT 341 ITR 563 (Del) to allow relief to the assessee, the ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the said decision, it was clearly mentioned that the MD had rendered services to the company and was entitled to receive commission for services rendered in terms of Board’ resolution/appointment as MD and TDS was also made from the said payment and in the pres…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Abro Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4687/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Feb 2020AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Dr. B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Divyanshu Agarwal, Adv. & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.D.R
Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)

…nt was allowed in the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) in the Assessment Years 2009-10 and 2010-11 by the Assessing Officer. Further, reliance was placed on the 5 judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 341 ITR 563 and CIT vs. Career Launcher India Ltd., (2012) 250 CTR 240 (Del). Ld. CIT (A) looking to the entire facts, past history and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court held that the facts of the case are identical to the pronouncement of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High court and commission is allowable. 6. Ld. DR relied upon the obser…

Jay Precision Products (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 972/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 972/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 2557/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Jay Precision Products (India) The Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), 12A, Colopen Compound, Old बनाम/ Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcj3642D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40A

…was also paying tax at higher rate and copies of the assessment orders of the sister concern were taken on record by the Tribunal.” 10. Further, this issue has been dealt in with by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AMD Metplast P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Delhi) wherein it is held that commission paid to managing director in addition to salary is not unreasonable or disallowable. Further, it is held that the payment of dividend was in term of Company’s Act,1956 and paid to all the shareholders equally as a return on investments and not salary or part thereof. Hon’ble High Court has finally held a…

Jay Precision Products (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 10(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2557/MUM/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Oct 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri M Balaganesh, Am आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 972/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2013-14) आयकर अपील सुं./ Ita No. 2557/Mum/2018 (यिर्ाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year 2014-15) Jay Precision Products (India) The Asst. Commissioner Of Private Limited Income Tax, Circle 10(2)(1), 12A, Colopen Compound, Old बनाम/ Room No. 209, 2Nd Floor, Nagardas Road, Andheri (East), Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai-400 059 Mumbai-400 020 (अपीलार्थी / Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) स्र्थायी लेखा सुं./Pan No. Aabcj3642D अपीलार्थी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri Dharmesh Shah, Ar प्रत्यर्थी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, Dr ुिवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17.07.2019 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2019

For Appellant: Shri Dharmesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40A

…was also paying tax at higher rate and copies of the assessment orders of the sister concern were taken on record by the Tribunal.” 10. Further, this issue has been dealt in with by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AMD Metplast P. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Delhi) wherein it is held that commission paid to managing director in addition to salary is not unreasonable or disallowable. Further, it is held that the payment of dividend was in term of Company’s Act,1956 and paid to all the shareholders equally as a return on investments and not salary or part thereof. Hon’ble High Court has finally held a…

Mdindia Healthcare Services (Tpa) Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1366/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1366/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mdindia Healthcare Services (Tpa) Pvt. Ltd. (Now Known As Mdindia Health Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd.) S.No.46/1, E-Space Building, A-2 Wing, 3Rd Floor, Pune Nagar Road, Vadgaon Sheri, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411014 …. Pan: Aadcm4828N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 14(2), Pune

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Garg
Section 143(3)Section 36(1)(ii)Section 40A(2)Section 40A(2)(b)

…ferred to by us in the paras hereinabove and consequently, we find no merit in the reliance placed upon by the CIT(A).” 13. The said issue was decided relying on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Del). In view of the dictate of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, it was held that reliance placed upon by the Revenue on the ratio laid down by Mumbai Special Bench of Tribunal in Dalal Broacha Stock Broking (P) Ltd. Vs. Addl.CIT (2011) 131 ITD 36 (Mum) (SB) was misplaced. It may be pointed out that the Assessing Officer in present case had also…

M/S. Cbre South Asia (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3527/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 36Section 36(1)Section 92C

…have been made to the other share holders namely M/s. C.B. Richard Ellis South Asia (P). Ltd. and therefore, section 36(l)(ii) of the Act has no application. He submitted that Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT reported in 341 ITR 563 has held that once incentives has not been disputed in the ratio of shareholding pattern, no disallowance can be made under section 36(l)(ii) of the Act. Referring to the above decision, he submitted that in the said case, the assessee had paid commission of Rs. 25,00,000/- to Shri Ashok Gupta, Managing Director of the assessee company which was…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1351/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. K. Billaiya & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Amount of Proposed international
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C

…the directors. It cannot therefore be said that the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2012] 341 ITR 563 / 20 taxmann.com 647 (Delhi) in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 647. It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services rendered and as part of their…

M/S. Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1065/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Vs. Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd, Circle-22(2), 507, G-5, Building, New Delhi Terminal1, Igi Airport, New Delhi Pan: Aabcs2455F (Appellant) (Respondent) Src Aviation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Acit, 507, G-5, Building, Circle-22(2), Terminal1, Igi Airport, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aabcs2455F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Atul Puri, CAFor Respondent: Ms Rinku Singh, Sr. DR
Section 143

…sion. Reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in AMD Metplast (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT.2012 TaxPub(DT) 1187 (Del-HC) :(2012) 341 ITR 0563. Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs CIT (1946) 14 TTR 647 (Bombay), Metplast Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563)(Delhi), S.A. Builders Ltd. v. CIT (2006) 289 ITR 26 , Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Walchand & Co. etc.. (1967) 65 ITR 381 In the case of the assessee itself, the Hon’ble ITAT had directed the AO to look into similar payment and the AO, during the A. Y. had found the payment commensurate to the market price and allowed the same in full.(Copy of…

DCIT Cir 7(1), Mumbai vs. Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7175/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…as otherwise payable to him as dividend, hence no disallowance under Sec. 36(1)(ii) was called for in the hands of the assessee company. The ld. A.R further relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Del). The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement submitted that now when it stood proved to the hilt that the commission paid to Mr. Darayus A. Bathena was for the services rendered by him as a sales agent of the assessee company and the said amount could by no means have been paid to him as dividend, hence the same was d…

Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 7142/MUM/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Aug 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Years: 2011-12 M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Private Limited, Mumbai बनाम/ G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J Assessment Years: 2011-12 Dcit-7(1), M/S Nat Steel Equipment Mumbai बनाम/ Private Limited, G.D. Ambekar Marg, Vs. Naigaum Road, Mumbai-400014 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) Pan. No. Aaacn5119J M/S Nat Steel Equipment Pvt. Ltd.

Section 143(3)Section 234B

…as otherwise payable to him as dividend, hence no disallowance under Sec. 36(1)(ii) was called for in the hands of the assessee company. The ld. A.R further relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Del). The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement submitted that now when it stood proved to the hilt that the commission paid to Mr. Darayus A. Bathena was for the services rendered by him as a sales agent of the assessee company and the said amount could by no means have been paid to him as dividend, hence the same was d…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl.CIT, Range-11, New Delhi

In the result ground No

ITA 6990/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamblei.T.A. No. 6990/Del/2017 (A.Y 2013-14)

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…the directors. It cannot therefore be said that the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2012] 341 ITR 563 / 20 taxmann.com 647 (Delhi) in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 647. It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services rendered and as part of their…

Nat Steel Equipment P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 7(1), Mumbai

ITA 4011/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.C.Sharma, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm Ita Nos. 4011 & 5070/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S Nat Steel Equipment Dcit-7(1), Room No. 622, Private Limited, G.D. Ambedkar Aaykar Bhawan, M.K Road, बिधम/ Marg, Naigaum Road, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. Vs. Bombay- 400014. स्थामी रेखा सं./ जीआइआय सं./ Pan No. Aaacn5119J (अऩीराथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Tralashwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suman Kumar, D.R
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234B

…as otherwise payable to him as dividend, hence no disallowance under Sec. 36(1)(ii) was called for in the hands of the assessee company. The ld. A.R further relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 (Del). The ld. A.R taking support of the aforesaid judicial pronouncement submitted that now when it stood proved to the hilt that the commission paid to Mr. Darayus A. Bathena was for the services rendered by him as a sales agent of the assessee company and the said amount could by no means have been paid to him as dividend, hence the same was d…

Hero Motocorp Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal No. 2424/Del/ 2015 filed by the revenue in assessment year 2010-11 is partly allowed

ITA 1616/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 92C

…the directors. It cannot therefore be said that the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast (P.) Ltd v. Dy. CIT [2012] 341 ITR 563 / 20 taxmann.com 647 (Delhi) in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs. CIT [1946] 14 ITR 647. It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services rendered and as part of their…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Caryaire Equipment India Pvt. Ltd., Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2951/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

Section 80Section 80I

…by the directors. It cannot therefore be said that the bonus would not have been payable to the directors as profits or dividend had it not been paid as bonus/commission. 20. The issue has been considered by this Court in AMD Metplast Pvt. Ltd vs DCIT (2012) 341 ITR 563 in the light of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Loyal Motor Service Co. Ltd vs CIT (1946) 14 ITR 647. It was observed that the judgment of the Bombay High Court (supra) does not assist the revenue and that so long as the bonus or commission is paid to the directors for services rendered and as part of their terms of employment it has to…

DCIT, Tiruppur vs. Sri Priyalakshmi Spinners Pvt Ltd, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S.Sunder Singhआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2240/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2011-12

Section 80I

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी !ड.एस. सु"दर $संह, लेखा सद"य के सम) BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2240/Mds/2015 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Shri Priyalakshmi Spinners P. Ltd., The Asst. Commissioner of SF No.119/4, Myvadi Village, Income Tax, Salary Circle-I, Udumaplet – 642 203. Coimbatore. [PAN: AAFCS 0700 H] (अपीलाथ-/Appellant) (./यथ-/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.43/Mds/2016 "नधा*रण वष* /Assessment Year: 201…

AMD Metplast (P) Ltd. v. DCIT (341 ITR 563) — Cited in 35 Judgments | BharatTax